OCTOBER 9 / Give-and-take with two sharp readers

A friend raises good questions in response to Georgsson-gate at the Chronicle.

I wonder how many people on the New York Times or Los Angeles Times editorial boards have been making political contributions. It might be fun to see.

This would be a good research project. My guess is that it rarely happens, but maybe I'm wrong. It would, indeed, be fun to find out.

As for the Chronicle, [executive vice president and editor] Jeff Cohen's wife did work for METRO and also for a group that opposes the death penalty. And both causes have been supported by Chronicle editorials in the past.

Mr. Cohen's wife is Kathryn Kase, a defense attorney associated with Texas Defender Service.

The Chronicle's coverage of and commentary on her trials, the work of her organization, and the issues she advocates has been completely and cheerfully biased. To my knowledge, the Kase-Cohen connection never been disclosed in the paper's articles and commentaries about her and her causes and issues.

How do such rules apply to spouses?

Newspaper rules against contributing to candidates, demonstrating, joining advocacy groups, and the like cannot logically, morally, or legally be applied to spouses. That is, newspapers cannot prohibit such activities by spouses.

Couldn't someone who wished to donate to Obama, for instance, merely ask his or her spouse to make the donation in his or her name instead, thereby bypassing the letter of the rule, if not the spirit?

Indeed. Some ethics codes recognize this problem and attempt to deal with it. Below is a long section of New York Times's code of ethics that tries to sort out what's okay and what's not.

98. In a day when most families balance two careers, the legitimate activities of household members and other relatives can sometimes create journalistic conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts.

Right on. The legitimate activities of Ms. Kase clearly create journalistic conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts for the Chronicle.

These can arise in civic or political life. A spouse's or companion's campaign for public office would obviously create the appearance of conflict for a political reporter or television reporter involved in election coverage. A brother or daughter in a high-profile job on Wall Street might produce the appearance of conflict for a business reporter or editor.

Or, as here, a wife's profession as a criminal defense lawyer and anti-death-penalty advocate produces the appearance of conflict for her uber-editor husband when his newspaper covers her trials, her group, and her causes.

99. [The New York Times] has no wish to intrude upon family members who are not its employees. Nothing in this document prohibits a spouse, companion or other relative of a staff member from taking part in any political, financial, commercial, religious or civic activity.

This makes virtue of necessity. As mentioned, a newspaper cannot prohibit spouses from taking part in any political, financial, commercial, religious, or civic activity.

Where restrictions are necessary, they fall on the company employee alone. But any attempt to conceal a staff member's activity by using a relative's name (or any other alias) would constitute a violation.

That's the answer to a journalist's using a spouse to make a political contribution that the journalist could not make in his own name. At the Times, that would be a violation. But this rule cannot, in practice, be enforced. Who could ever sort out the intentions of a journalist and a spouse if the spouse made the contribution? A watchdog might sniff out the gift, but it would be all but impossible -- absent a nasty divorce with a vindictive spouse -- to prove that the journalist was the true donor.

In Texas, the issue is even more complicated. A check written by one spouse on a bank account holding community property would be a joint gift by both spouses, at least from the perspective of Texas property law (though not necessarily from either Texas or federal election law).

So what to do? The Times's answer: be sensitive (and don't get caught).

100. Staff members must be sensitive that direct political activity by their spouses, family or household members, such as running for office or managing a compaign -- even while proper -- may well create conflicts of interest or the apperance of conflicts. Even limited participation, like giving money or ringing doorbells, may stir suspicion of political bias if it becomes conspicuous. Staff members and their families should be wary of ambiguity. A bumper sticker on the family car or a campaign sign on the lawn may be misread as the journalist's, no matter who in the household actually placed it. When a spouse or companion makes a campaign contribution, it is wise to avoid writing the check on a joint account.

"Wise to avoid writing the check on a joint" is a nice way of instructing journalists how to hide the evidence.

101. To avoid conflicts, staff members may not furnish, prepare or supervise news content about relatives, spouses or others with whom they have close personal relationships. . . .

So how can Mr. Cohen supervise news about his wife?

Simple.

He doesn't work for the New York Times. He works for the Houston Chronicle.

102. The [New York Times depends] on staff members to disclose potential problems in a timely fashion, with an eye to working together to head off embarrassment to all concerned. Any staff member who sees a potential conflict of interest in the activities of spouse, relatives or friends must discuss the situation with newsroom management. In many or even in most cases, disclosure will suffice. But if newsroom management considers the problem serious, the staff member may have to withdraw from certain coverage. Sometimes an assignment may have to be modified or a beat changed.

UPDATE: To whom should Mr. Cohen disclose the Kase-Cohen conflict? Well, to Hearst management, for starters. Then how about Chronicle's readers?  A different sharp reader says the Chronicle has disclosed the Cohen-Kase relationship. I missed it, but I'll check again. Here is the full comment:

Jeff Cohen's marriage to Kathryn Kase is frequently noted in news stories in the Chronicle. Check their archives. Search "kase and cohen" and it will come up frequently. There has never been a secret about this.

Georgsson-gate is a far bigger problem because Georgsson, unlike Cohen, actually writes editorials. And she wrote an anti-Ed Emmett, anti-county GOP editorial one week to the day after donating to Emmett's opponent, David Mincberg, at a fundraiser. That editorial is now prominently displayed on Mincberg's Web site. That, then, is intentional collusion. (Ironically, Georgsson's editorial was in part critical of secrecy in campaign contributions.)

Meanwhile, here's a good blog to while away the long hours between new posts at "Unca Darrell."

Comments

[kevin whited]

Jeff Cohen's marriage to Kathryn Kase is noted sometimes, but not at all times. Kase's connection to broader anti-death-penalty activism is usually not explored in Chron stories, however, and it is ludicrous to think that a reporter is going to commit career suicide by engaging in critical reporting on Kase.

Remember, Jeff Cohen's pets do very well at the Chronicle (think Casey, Falkenberg, and the new editorial page editor). People who are the opposite of his pets? I'm thinking not so much. And that's the problem for the newspaper.

Additionally, the newspaper's anti-death penalty crusading (on the editorial AND news pages) is well established. For amusement, do a search on "Chron Eye for the Death Row Killer Guy."