OCTOBER 10 / Why Georgsson-gate is a joke

LET'S IMAGINE a monopoly newspaper in a large American city and imagine, further, that the editorial board employs two writers. We'll call them AG-1 and AG-2.

• AG-1 is a full-throated liberal . . . .

• AG-1 is a full-throated liberal with politically correct opinions on feminism, abortion, the environment, and all else. In her heart of hearts, her friends know, she is a radical, but -- like William Ayers -- she prefers to beaver away within the system for the causes she favors. She is also willing to put her money where her mouth is. In June she gives $250 to Barack Obama; in August she gives $250 to a prominent  Democratic candidate for a local office. (For the local contribution, click here, then click through to the candidate's report.)
• AG-2 holds exactly the same political beliefs and moral values as AG1, but unlike her comrade sister, she respects and obeys her newspaper's unambiguous rule: "Do not contribute to political candidates or partisan causes." Instead, she gives her contributions in kind: unsigned editorials, like this one (linked here from the Web site of her favored local candidate) that subtly or not-so-subtly support her candidates and causes.

Does AG-1 have an ethical problem? AG-2? The newspaper?

In the ideal world, journalistic Neverland, everyone is in trouble.

"A newspaper's credibility is built on trust," it has been said. "To earn the public's trust, journalists must strive to be accurate, objective, fair and ethical."

Hiring either AG-1 or AG-2 to write about important matters and events with the scope of their political activism is a violation of that trust.

Some ideologues may deserve a public voice (most don't), but only under a byline.

In the real world, however, only AG-1 is in trouble. Why? Because she gave the game away.

The rule against political contributions is not intended to protect newspapers from having highly politicized ideologues on their staffs; it's intended to protect newspapers from public disclosure of the open secret that they have highly politicized ideologues on their staffs. The message:

We don't really care that you're a true believer in your near-radical causes. In fact, that's why we hired you. What we care about is giving evidence to those miserable @#%/&*s who say modern journalism is irredeemably biased in favor of liberals and Democrats. By appearing to prove their point, you have hurt the tribe. You must, therefore, undergo the traditional shaming ceremony: with your eyes downcast, you will now be tapped gently three times on the wrist. Now go forth and sin some more: just not that way.

My modest proposal: Down with the barriers! Unshackle the journalism community!

What do we want?

To con-tri-bute!

When do we want it?

Now!

Free Andrea!

Free Andrea!

Rah-rah-rah.

Newspapers should give their reporters, local columnists, editorial writers, and editors $500 each, with strict orders to contribute within the week to their very most favorite political candidates. The newspaper should then publish the names of the donors and their gifts. What a refreshing moment that would be.

Afterward, people with better things to do would no longer need to waste precious brain cells thinking up new ways to state the obvious: journalists and their newspapers are in the tank for the left. We could just point to the list.

Let the sunshine in.

PS: Another reason newspapers have a rule against political contributions is to protect editors and staffers from being dunned. Most of them are too cheap to give anyway, but they don't want the embarrassment of saying no to their pals. What better shield than journalistic ethics?

PSS: I can't find the offending pro-Mincberg, anti-Emmett editorial on the Chronicle's Web site. Has it been taken down?

UPDATE: Thanks, as always, to Lose an Eye for the prompt link.