If gay journalists marry, is credibility in question?

Phil BRONSTEIN had a problem.

Bronstein is the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, and early this month, amid the growing controversy over gay marriage, two veteran members of his staff -- both lesbians, both actively covering the story -- got married, to each other.

Did that amount to a conflict of interest -- real, potential or perceived? Should the two journalists be taken off the story? After several lengthy meetings and amicable conversations both with staffers and with what Bronstein characterized as “a variety of senior editors and others,” both inside and outside the paper, he decided that reporter Rachel Gordon and photographer Liz Mangelsdorf “should no longer cover same-sex marriage.”

Most Chronicle editors involved in the story and in the discussions agreed, Bronstein said, that “Chronicle journalists directly and personally involved in a major news story -- one in whose outcome they also have a personal stake -- should not also cover that story.”

I think that’s the right decision. We in the media are deluding ourselves if we think the public automatically accepts our simple assertion that we can report fairly on issues we not only feel strongly about but are personally involved in.

Polls show the public has been increasingly skeptical of the media in recent years. The percentage of people who say they believe what they read in newspapers has declined from 80% in 1985 to 59% in 2003, according to the Pew Research Center for People and the Press. The percentage that think news organizations are politically biased has increased from 45% to 59% in the same period.

In the aftermath of the fabrication and plagiarism scandals involving Jayson Blair at the New York Times and, just this month, Jack Kelley at USA Today, news media credibility is shakier than ever.

News organizations make it easier for skeptics and critics to attack them -- and for the public to doubt them even more -- if they permit their journalists to become personally involved in the story.

In a memo to the staff, Bronstein made clear that he had no doubts about Gordon’s and Mangelsdorf’s ability to cover the story fairly and accurately. “The issue here,” he said, “is most definitely not the integrity of the journalists themselves.”

Rather, he said, the issue was one of perception, of “the integrity and credibility of the paper.”

Bronstein emphasized that point that when we spoke by phone on Monday. He said Gordon and Mangelsdorf had been the lead reporter and lead photographer on the story, “and they were, as always, very professional in their coverage. I’ve known them both a long time, more than 10 years, and this was not about even the slightest concern that they would exhibit any kind of bias in their work.

“This was about public perceptions of conflict of interest and where to draw the line.”

In other words, would readers -- especially those opposed to same-sex marriage -- believe the Chronicle could cover this highly sensitive story fairly and impartially if two lesbian staffers involved in that coverage had themselves gotten married?

Not surprisingly, Bronstein’s answer-- a reluctant but firm “No” -- triggered its own controversy in the gay community, especially in San Francisco, the longtime epicenter of the country’s gay rights movement and, now, of the drive for same-sex marriage as well.

Larger issues

Critics say the questions raised by Bronstein’s actions are far broader than the issue of two lesbians covering one story.

Should a woman who’s had an abortion be allowed to cover the abortion issue?

Should black or Latino or any other minority reporters, especially those who have suffered personal discrimination because of their race or ethnicity, be allowed to cover stories that involve those issues?

Should a Jewish reporter or a Muslim reporter be allowed to cover hostilities in the Mideast?

Most reputable news organizations have strict policies prohibiting participation in political movements. No marching, no campaigning, no circulating of petitions, no financial contributions. Leonard Downie, executive editor of the Washington Post, carries noninvolvement so far that he even refuses to vote.

But isn’t there a difference between a political act (taking part in a demonstration supporting same-sex marriage) and a personal act (getting married to your gay lover)?

Well, the gay rights movement has its roots in the drive for equality by many persecuted groups in the 1960s, and the mantra of that period was “The personal is political” -- the title of a pioneering essay by feminist scholar Carol Hanisch. Or as Catharine MacKinnon, another feminist scholar, put it, “The personal becomes the political.”

It’s difficult to make one policy to fit all situations, of course. There is a significant difference, for example, between a minority reporter covering a story on racism and two gay reporters deciding to get married while covering the story of gay marriage.

First, people don’t choose their ethnicity or, by and large, their religion. Yes, I know, gays don’t choose to be gay either. But marriage is a choice. I think gays should have that choice. I think same-sex marriage should be legal. But at the moment, that is a controversial position, and I think gay journalists unnecessarily thrust themselves -- and, more important, their news organizations -- into the heart of that controversy if they decide to marry.

They are, in effect -- intentionally or otherwise -- making a personal and political statement by doing so, and I think journalists should cover stories, not make statements. In this instance, they should make a choice rather than a statement -- either get married and ask to be taken off the story or cover the story and remain unmarried, at least until the legal issue of same-sex marriage is resolved.

An ongoing controversy

Is that unfair? Yes. But as President Kennedy famously said, “Life is unfair.”

Some gays say the Chronicle is betraying its own heritage by removing Gordon and Mangelsdorf from the gay marriage story. Randy Shilts provided brilliant early coverage of the AIDS epidemic for the Chronicle, they rightly point out, and editors did not take him off that story because he too suffered from AIDS. But I would invoke my earlier argument here too: Shilts did not choose to get AIDS.

I suppose the closest analogy to the Chronicle case would be a reporter who had an abortion covering abortion. Here too there’s a difference, though. The woman may not have chosen to get pregnant -- and, once pregnant, she has to do something, either have the baby or have an abortion. She cannot remain pregnant forever. If she has an abortion, and the courts later rule that abortion is illegal, it has no practical effect on that woman.

But two people in love can continue to live together, without marrying, and marriage is an ongoing proposition -- and for gays, for now, an ongoing controversy. However the courts ultimately decide, would readers be likely to trust the Chronicle’s coverage of the story if they knew that Gordon and Mangelsdorf stood to gain, or lose, personally by that decision?

Many people have to make sacrifices and compromises to pursue their careers. I’ve already mentioned the requirement that journalists be, in effect, political eunuchs, and I can recall vividly, early in my career, covering civil rights marches that I wanted desperately to join; I knew I couldn’t do so without sacrificing my professional standing.

Journalists often have to make personal sacrifices as well -- spending a long time away from their families or missing birthdays and anniversaries, their children’s games and concerts -- because of the demands of the news.

Not getting personally involved in a story you’re covering -- or not covering a story in which you’re personally involved -- is another sacrifice ... and one that a responsible, professional reporter should be willing to make.

David Shaw can be reached at david.shaw@latimes.com.