Puppycow
17th November 2008, 01:17 AM
Curious (http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/1108/Howells_fairness_doctrine.html)
Following up on last week's column, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell gives some more red meat to the right-wing talk radio contingent by writing that because there's a "perception" of liberal bias in media, a nonpartisan newspaper should consider instituting a political litmus test when hiring reporters.
Are there ways to tackle this? More conservatives in newsrooms and rigorous editing would be two. The first is not easy: Editors hire not on the basis of beliefs but on talent in reporting, photography and editing, and hiring is at a standstill because of the economy. But newspapers have hired more minorities and women, so it can be done.
There's no problem with more rigorous editing or questioning the placement of stories. But I don't know any newspaper editor who would be comfortable asking reporters their political views and then using that information to help determine whether they should be hired or not. And trying to stuff the Post with avowed conservatives to correct "perceptions" of bias won't work.
The Post, I'm sorry to say, is still going to be viewed as a liberal paper to a large swath of conservatives no matter who's in the newsroom. Or The New York Times, for that matter. Despite public editor Clark Hoyt showing there were more tough investigative pieces in The Times about Obama than McCain, I didn't notice right-wing talkers all of a sudden saying the Times 2008 coverage was fair.
Hey, isn't there another newspaper in Washington, called The Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/), that is supposed to be conservative? And what do conservatives think about this kind of ideological affirmative action? Should The Post hire less qualified reporters who happen to be conservatives?
:id:
Following up on last week's column, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell gives some more red meat to the right-wing talk radio contingent by writing that because there's a "perception" of liberal bias in media, a nonpartisan newspaper should consider instituting a political litmus test when hiring reporters.
Are there ways to tackle this? More conservatives in newsrooms and rigorous editing would be two. The first is not easy: Editors hire not on the basis of beliefs but on talent in reporting, photography and editing, and hiring is at a standstill because of the economy. But newspapers have hired more minorities and women, so it can be done.
There's no problem with more rigorous editing or questioning the placement of stories. But I don't know any newspaper editor who would be comfortable asking reporters their political views and then using that information to help determine whether they should be hired or not. And trying to stuff the Post with avowed conservatives to correct "perceptions" of bias won't work.
The Post, I'm sorry to say, is still going to be viewed as a liberal paper to a large swath of conservatives no matter who's in the newsroom. Or The New York Times, for that matter. Despite public editor Clark Hoyt showing there were more tough investigative pieces in The Times about Obama than McCain, I didn't notice right-wing talkers all of a sudden saying the Times 2008 coverage was fair.
Hey, isn't there another newspaper in Washington, called The Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/), that is supposed to be conservative? And what do conservatives think about this kind of ideological affirmative action? Should The Post hire less qualified reporters who happen to be conservatives?
:id: