Objectivity is a serious subject for newspeople

I (heart) Obama.

Just kidding!

I don’t (heart) anybody in politics.

At least, not in real life. I don’t give money to them, put bumper stickers on my car or signs in my yard. I’m not even sure if I can tell people whom I’m voting for today.

I don’t do any of these things for one simple reason: My employer forbids me to exercise any of these fundamental freedoms, no matter how excited I may be about this year’s presidential sweepstakes.

To which I say: Good for my employer.

Should I be outraged? As a loyal American interested in politics and working in an industry that’s all about freedom of expression, you’d think a bumper sticker would be right up my alley. Or putting in a few hours on a weekend to lick some envelopes for a candidate.

But I’m not outraged. I’m not even peeved.

I know this will sound quaint to lots of readers, if not downright phony, but most of us at the newspaper take seriously the idea of shunning involvement in partisan politics.

It’s right there in Times guidelines. “Staff members may not engage in political advocacy -- as members of a campaign or an organization specifically concerned with political change. Nor may they contribute money to a partisan campaign or candidate. . . . Staff members should avoid public expressions or demonstrations of their political views -- bumper stickers, lawn signs and the like.”

Normally, we wouldn’t care. But John McCain versus Mitt Romney? Hillary Clinton versus Barack Obama?

Come on, this is exciting!

When I talk about political neutrality, longtime followers of this column may be spitting out their orange juice. Let’s just say a reader here and there has detected a leftward tilt in my worldview.

The truth is, columnists have more latitude than news reporters to pipe up. But please make a note that I’m registered as an independent -- a career-long imperative I’ve followed since told to do so 30-some years ago.

But should we in the news business camouflage our political leanings?

Lots of readers say we ought to quit kidding ourselves, because we’re not kidding them.

Better to just come out and show where you stand. If that means marching at antiwar rallies or handing out anti-abortion pamphlets, so be it.

Bad idea. Believe it or not, we are trying to cover these controversial social issues with objectivity. And we still have the belief that people belonging to Greenpeace, for example, shouldn’t be covering the environment.

No, that doesn’t mean we don’t have personal opinions. It just means we’re schooled that you can have an opinion and still report both sides fairly.

And if being a party activist suggests you can’t be impartial (which it would), better not to be one.

I’ve told the story before of the loyal reader who continually chided me during a California election year over what he thought was Times bias for a candidate for governor. Time after time, he sent newspaper clippings “proving” our bias.

I argued, but to no avail. Only when The Times endorsed the other candidate did I silence him. Even he couldn’t answer why we would be “favoring” one candidate and endorse the other.

This year, some papers have restated their bans on staffers getting involved with politics.

In Denver, one newspaper has said no staffer can take part in today’s Colorado caucuses. The other paper limited its ban to those most closely connected to the paper’s political coverage.

In Tacoma, an editor has asked staffers involved in political coverage not to take part in Washington’s caucuses. And the editors said they “strongly discourage” other staffers from taking part.

In trying to split the difference, Denver Post editor Greg Moore told the staff: “While attending a caucus could raise questions about your impartiality as a journalist, I realize it is a right to participate in our democratic process. So, with certain exceptions, we will not prohibit folks from attending the caucuses.”

Whether readers believe it or not, this stuff still matters to us. We take it seriously, as seriously as our readers take their jobs.

This year, because of the excitement in both parties’ presidential races, I imagine lots of journalists would love to dive in instead of remaining on the outside looking in.

But on the outside looking in is right where we belong.

--

Dana Parsons’ column appears Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. He can be reached at (714) 966-7821 or at dana.parsons@latimes.com. An archive of his recent columns is at www.latimes.com/parsons.