The Post’s Code of Ethics forces students out of political realms and into complacency due to conflict of interest clause.
In Spring Semester last year, my friend Megan and I were canvassing Shively, trying to get signatures for a petition protesting a tuition hike. We attempted to talk to pretty much everyone we saw. At one point, a group of students walked by and didn’t even pause to listen to us — “We’re with The Post,” one of them said. “We can’t sign that.” The other students nodded in agreement and uncomfortably avoided making eye contact with either of us.
I’m not personally offended that the Posties declined to sign our petition. When you put your political opinions out there so frequently and so loudly you learn to accept rejection, and occasionally outright scorn. But the students from The Post were not saying that they disagreed with us, let alone scorning us. The students that declined to sign Megan and my petition were simply adhering to a policy, which could have very real consequences for them if broken.
“Post staffers will not engage in activities that could sway their ethics ...” The Post’s Code of Ethics reads. “Conflicts of interest include, but aren’t restricted to, Post staff members participating in protests, campus activism, political movements and signing petitions relevant to current events.”
That the students were forced to adhere to such a policy strikes me as far worse than their declining to sign a petition on ideological grounds. It’s completely absurd that student reporters are expected not to participate in politics. Declining to participate due to a “conflict of interest” is a political act, since not participating is essentially complacency, which always works in the interest of the oppressor.
Also, it’s not like journalists don’t have political opinions. No matter what their level of dedication to their views, they have biases which will always influence their writing. What are the stories we deem important enough to tell? What quotes do we pull, and which facts do we use? What do we include, and what do we exclude? With what information do we end the article, thereby validating that point?
To say that journalists should not go one step further and act on their political opinions is simply to hide from the paper’s audience the biases that already exist. This makes the publication as a whole actually less objective by concealing information that would be hugely helpful for readers trying to get a firm grasp on a given situation.
Of course, as a counter-argument to what I’ve outlined above, you could say that The New York Times’ Code of Ethics has similar policies to The Post’s: “No newsroom or editorial employee may do anything that damages The Times’s reputation for strict neutrality in reporting on politics and government.” And while I would certainly apply the same rhetoric to The New York Times as I have already employed toward The Post, such a policy is far more ridiculous for a student publication.
College is a time when we are allowed to explore our identities, political and otherwise. It’s a rare opportunity to surround ourselves with people of our own age, coming from a variety of backgrounds and experiences. To force students out of political realms and into complacency is to crush this exploration. I understand that The Post wants to treat itself as a legitimate publication, which is a questionable call in and of itself, but the policies they deem legitimate are, I would argue, completely illegitimate in practice.
I can’t blame the students that did not sign the petition when Megan and I were canvassing in Shively. But I can blame The Post for enforcing these frivolous, and ultimately detrimental policies.
Daniel Kington is a sophomore studying English and a Student Union organizer. He is also an officer of the Sierra Student Coalition. What are your thoughts on journalists and campus activism? Email him at dk982513@ohio.edu.
