Kathy Tepsa on 
clhughes on 
Today Pat Snyder had a guest column appear in the Wausau Daily Herald. In the column Pat attacked Democrats on Medicare and does a bit of campaigning. I think this column, and its appearance, begin to whittle away at the credibility of Pat Snyder as a host of a local news program on a locally owned radio station.
We posed the question before — is it a good idea that a man who is running for office be allowed to have an active radio show on a FCC licensed station. The rule is that he can. There is a set timeline that the FCC determines to be the campaign period, that Pat cannot be an active member of the broadcast team, which of course they are complying with.
The question becomes then — is it a good idea that Pat be allowed to stay on the air while also campaigning for office? This is less a question of legality, because of course he can, but should he? His supporters, of course, believe he should: any chance Pat gets to raise his profile, speak to the public, the better. Now that he has taken on the role of active campaigner though, should Midwest Communication consider the option of taking Pat off the air to at least prevent the appearance of conflict?
Our infrequent food blogger Matt Lehman posted this on facebook, “Got called tonight by two separate pollsters wanting my opinion about the recall race and the presidential primary in Wisconsin. I declined both, citing my media ties. Some of us have higher standards than those Gannett’ers who signed the recall petitions.” Matt essentially took those members of the Gannett staff who signed the recall petitions to task. This makes sense. But, it led me to consider the role of the campaign, and Pat Snyder, and the spirit of the FCC rule about campaigners being on the air. Matt clearly took a position that the signing of the petition, engaging in the political process by individuals is wrong for members of the Gannett staff. One wonders if Lehman holds the same position for all members of the media.
But, there is not any law or rule against a private citizen actively engaging in the political process. There is apparently a company policy that Gannett employees must adhere to. The policy is in place, I would assume, to avoid any PERCEPTION that the media outlet or the staff of said media outlet from being partisan, or engaging in any electioneering sort of activity. Critics like Lehman and others have not leveled any substantive claim that the staff has gone out of its way to be partisan, but the policy exists to push back against such a claim, and clearly signing an election recall petition is a violation of said policy. The policy itself appears in place to prevent even a whiff of partisanship.
This obviously brings me back to Pat Snyder, the law, and the perception issue. If Matt Lehman of 550 AM, is going to throw stones, then I wonder if Midwest Communication has a policy that prohibits staff members from taking part in election or campaign activities? Because, it is my reading of the tea leaves that running for office is both an election type activity, a campaign style issue, and furthermore, a partisan issue.
So, is it appropriate for Pat Snyder to remain on the air while actively campaigning, or does it put the news gathering activities of 550 AM and other Midwest Communication radio stations in question?
In general I agree with what you say, but I have to disagree with the statement by Matt that ““Got called tonight by two separate pollsters wanting my opinion about the recall race and the presidential primary in Wisconsin. I declined both, citing my media ties. Some of us have higher standards than those Gannett’ers who signed the recall petitions.” And your agreement that it made sense. I have two problems with that. The first is that somehow you both suggest that members of the media relinquish thier right to participate in the elective process because of their jobs. You make the same mistake that Gannett did when it criticized the employees who signed the petition and praised those who did not. Signing the petition indicates support for the recall, but not signing may also indicate oppostion to the recall. Ganett took the position, and you seem to agree, that not signing indicates public neutrality when, in fact, it is just as reasonable to say that not signing indicates opposition to the recall. The petitions are public so we can see who signed, but we can also see who did not sign. And there is no reason to automatically assume that every member of the media who did not sign did so out of a sense of neutrality. As a matter of fact, given the division among the people of the state, it is much more reasonable that many who did not sign did so out of opposition to the recall. It is hard to assume something about those who did not sign when the action taken to indicate neutrality is exactly the same as the action necessary to indicate opposition. There is an “equal whiff of partisanship” in not signing as there is in signing.
The second problem is Matt’s comparison to signing a recall petition with answering a phone survey. There is no constitutional right to participate in a survey. And the outcome of a survey has no direct influence on the electoral process. But a recall petition, public or not, is a vital step in the recall process (a right guaranteed to the citizenry). Without a certain number of signatures there is no election. That’s a lot different than answering, anonymously some questions on the phone. To say that someone should not sign is to say that you, as a citizen, should give up a legitimate right you have because your employer says so. And, by not signing, you abandon neutrality. If you don’t sign, whether you support the recall or not, you are acting in a manner that ultimately reduces the chance of a recall happening. It’s different that the outcome of an election. There the only figure that matters is who gets the most out of the votes cast. If you don’t vote you do not influence the outcome. But if you don’t sign you directly impact the chances of the recall process succeeding. Equating signing a recall to answering some questions over the phone trivializes the recall process. The primary election Matt referenced proceeded whether he answered the questions or not. But the recall election is directly dependent on getting a required numbered of signatures. And not signing because your employer doesn’t want you to impedes the success of the process. There is nothing neutral about it. And there is something vaguely sinister about saying that a good employee should give up his or her right to participate in the democratic process simply because the employer says so.
Matthew’s absolutely right.
But, even if he weren’t, Lehman’s self-serving analogy doesn’t work AT ALL. Since when have the results of a phone survey ever been made public? How, exactly, does one demonstrate their higher ethical standards by giving up their right to have a personal political opinion? That’s nonsensical, and – as Matthew points out – dangerous.
I think “That made sense.” was “That made sense coming from Matt.”
I suppose I could have been clearer.
I disagree strongly with the tone, and what Matt said.
But what about Pat Snyder.
Dino, you are right about Matt being critical of Gannett emloyees while overlooking Pat Snyder. Clearly Pat Snyder and his employer have made the call that his being on the air is legal. If it is then I don’t see a problem with it. WSAU management seems to have taken the view that he can remain on the air as long as no laws are broken.
At least that’s a standard to apply. Matt’s criticism of the Gannett employees seems to be something other than legal. Somehow their participation in a perfectly legal activity (one – participation in the elective process – that Gannett encourages frequently) is of a lower ethical standard than Pat Snyder’s being on the air. It seems that his ability to influence people is greater than someone who merely inputs data or designs ad layouts. Those are the jobs of the two WDH employees who signed.
A more interesting question is whether or not Matt finds Pat Snyder’s continuing presence on the air to be ethically acceptable.
I’d be very interested to hear Lehman answer this question from Matthew, as well as the two questions Dino asked at the end of this very good piece.
I do not think we are going to. I also do not expect an answer. I was not hoping to get an answer from Matt. But, I wonder what your answer is.
Dino, I get your issues with Pat. You’ve had them for some time. I don’t plan on voting for the guy either.
Can I ask you a question though?
You feel very strongly about taking people to task on breaking “rules”. Yet after Ed Gale comes out in public (Herald article) and accuses the mayor of making behind door deals and settling city business without proper rules being followed, you and the rest of the Wausau media ignored it completely.
Why is that? What is it about Pat that makes you go after him so strongly, but when a city council president says meetings are being held in back rooms and in bars on city business, it’s ignored completely?
Can you answer that since you are a stickler for the rules?
Sure, I can try. I will try to answer your questions of me directly.
The Ed Gale thing…honestly I had no idea. If I am being frank, I am so indifferent to both Mayor Tipple and Councilman Gale, I hardly pay attention to them. I think I have taken about a year off from paying attention to the city council, maybe I will start going again. Being disclosing, the idea of sitting there on tuesday nights and listening to the constant din of a sort of nothingness, yeah, that was not too exciting. But, thanks for the reminder, I should start going. It might turn into something good.
“What is it about Pat that makes you go after him so strongly, but when a city council president says meetings are being held in back rooms and in bars on city business, it’s ignored completely?”
I would disagree strongly that I went after Pat strongly. I hardly talk about Pat at all here. I have an issue with Midwest Communications actively keeping a campaigning individual on the air, and I think that it is a bad practice.
I understand the FCC rule that they are following, and I think the actions of Midwest Communications in this, should lead to a reexamination of this older policy of the FCC.
You have to acknowledge, if we are being honest, that I did not go after Pat. Pat is the lever on which the question moves, but the question is about an campaigner having a radio show.
I would have a problem is a democrat, or any campaigner had an active position on any licensed FCC station of any kind.
I do disagree with the choice of 550 AM to keep Pat on the air, not because of Pat, but because he is seeking election. The FCC and the airwaves of this country are a public trust, and I think that by having a candidate with a regular program that is supposed to be news (they call the morning show a news show) I think it whittles away the public trust.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Pat as a person, or his ideas. To attempt to read that into it, that is just projection.
I think the comment made by Lehman on Facebook put this sort of thing into a pretty neat stark contrast. Lehman is critical of Gannett employees for doing something he clearly disapproves of. I think the irony of the 550 AM newsman calling the ethical actions of signing a petition wrong, while another newsman on the same station is running for office while maintaining a legal radio show is awesomely ironic.
No one broke any laws, but both are questionable activities worthy of discussion.
But, again, for me this has nothing to do with Pat Snyder. When Snyder announced he was running, I public said, Good Job.
Thanks for the question though.
Dino,
Please explain what is questionable about two employees, neither of whom is is a news reporting and/or editorial position, doing what is not only their right under the law but the only thing they can do to work towards a recall. They have no more input into what goes into the newspaper or any editorial position the paper takes than does the rural carrier who delivers the paper in the country. He or she is also a Gannett employee. Are you suggesting that all the news carriers likewise be prohibited from signing?
And please explain how not signing the petition is not equally questionable since not signing is a public way of opposing the recall. You seem to have adopted Gannett’s position that the action necessary to oppose the recall – not signing the petition – is somehow neutral. There are a lot of people who did not sign who opposed the recall. Would you suggest that all of them did the neutral thing in not signing? Of course not.
The argument that signing is somehow questionable fails on three grounds:
1. It is not questionable for citizens to engage in political activity that is legal. And in this case signing is the only way to work towards a recall. The employees who supported the recall could only do one thing – sign the petition. Or they could give up their constitutional right to participate because their employer says so. The people who signed did the only legal thing they could do to participate. Yet Gannett found that action to be deserving of criticism and you, evidently, find it questionable.
2. It is not reasonable to say that everyone who did not sign did so out of neutrality. The action to oppose the recall and the action to display neutrality is exactly the same. If all the WDH employees who did not sign did so out of the desire to remain neutral it can be said that no one in the state officially opposed the recall. There were over 900,000 who supported it and everyone else was neutral. Not only at the WDH but everywhere in the state. It’s a foolish claim to make, but it is just as foolish for the WDH employees as it is on a statewide basis. The people who did not sign because they opposed the recall did what they legally had the right to do to prevent a recall from occurring. There is nothing neutral in their action. Yet somehow Gannett found them worthy of praise and you not worthy of questioning.
3. There is no true “neutral” position in this instance. Anyone who signs is clearly in support of the recall. But anyone who does not sign is clearly doing something that works in opposition to the recall, regardless of the motive. The success of the recall is dependent on reaching a threshold number of signatures. Anyone who does not sign is doing something (refusing to sign) that works to prevent the recall election from happening. That is regardless of motive and it is anything but a neutral action. It’s a dichotomy – a signature serves to support a recall election, but not signing (for whatever the motive) serves to prevent the total number of signatures from being reached. And that has the effect of working to oppose the recall. Not signing a recall petition is not a neutral action. It has the very real consequence of making the recall less likely. And that is anything but neutral. And it is just as questionable as signing.
So, I read all that, and I will only both commenting on the opening bit.
“Dino,
Please explain what is questionable about two employees, neither of whom is is a news reporting and/or editorial position, doing what is not only their right under the law but the only thing they can do to work towards a recall.”
There is a policy at Gannett that forbids such activities. Thusly, it is questionable.
You can freely discuss whether or not such a policy is valid, but the policy exists. It is exist for what many think is a valid reason.
And you can discuss that with Gannett. I am not defending the policy.
Dino, it’s not really fair for you to call something “questionable” and “worthy of discussion” and then refuse to discuss it. You say you’re not defending Gannett’s policy, but you don’t seem all that willing to condemn it either. You want to know where we stand – so where do you?
For the record, I think Gannett’s policy is deplorable, for exactly the reasons that Matthew lays out. If Matt Lehman ever answered your initial question, which I’m sure he won’t, I’d be very interested to know if 550 has such a policy.
Charles, Thanks. I just find it exhausting.
We are going to have a little bit of a meltdown moment here, but I have to ask myself, and the reader, at where does my responsibility to for discussion end?
I wrote the original post. I answered the ItAint News questions.
I tried to respond to Matthew.
I get that I am writing on my blog, stating and asking things. I get all of that.
But, it is exhausting personally and dude behind the keyboardly…to read Matthews posts, which I sort of feel is an attack on what I have written to this point.
Then, I feel like I need to defend myself, and that defense is exhausting.
Do you think the policy of Gannett is objectionable?
Do you think it hypocritical for an employee of the same station as Pat Snyder to make a comment on facebook being critical of people for signing a recall petition, a perfectly legal activity, while being on the air with Pat Snyder a man running for office while being on the air, another perfectly legal activity?
Is that hypocritical?
I have an opinion, I question the validity of the policy at Gannett. But, to be fair, this style of discussion while apparently fun, creates exhaustion in me.
I am super proud of CW, and the writing I do, but it is exhausting to write something, then spend days responding to comments. I want to be respectful of readers, and commenters, and all of that. But, I am tired.
I fully understand more than most I would reckon, the inherent responsibility I choose to take on when I post something. I am not shirking that at all.
But tonight I am tired.
So, to answer your question, I am not a supporter of the Gannett policy. I know where it came from, and out of what it was born, and in that history it comes from a real and needed place.
But, in todays society, it is questionable at best.
Interesting discussion. I think Gannett could have done everyone, including themselves, a big favor if they had enunciated what they say was their existing policy AGAIN to the their employees at the time the recall petitions were being circulated. At this point, it just looks like window dressing over the fact that somebody decided to reveal the names and call them on it.
As for Snyder, I talked about that in February:
http://jimrosenberg.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/keeping-snyder-on-the-air-its-the-least-they-can-do/
If Snyder was spinning polka CDs and not spending a good share of his time talking about politics, then WSAU’s position to do no more than the minimum required by law might be understandable. That is not the case. Moreover, it is significant to note that the station’s policy today seems like a significant departure from their past practice. (See former WSAU on-air employee Bob Look’s comment that follows my blog.)
Dino, I do find it interesting that you say something is worthy of discussion and then refuse to discuss it. But, again, you miss the entire point.
First, you said it is a questionable activity to sign the recall petition. Just as questionable as allowing Pat Snyder to remain on the air. And why is it questionable? Because Gannett has a policy against it. What’s questionable is this policy if it really prohibits employees from exercising their rights. And that’s what they did. The policy is no more heinous than if the policy was to prohibit employees from voting. After all, casting a vote is indicative of a bias, isn’t it? But voting is private, i.e. no one knows who you voted for. Is that the difference? But people will still know you voted – that is you indicated a bias in your vote. Perhaps the only way to guarantee public neutrality is to have an official policy that forbids employees from registering to vote. After all, voter registration records are public. and if do not register you are then unable to express a bias by voting. And the public will know that all employees remain neutral.
Gannett has this policy to demonstrate that they remain neutral on the issues they report. The people who signed at the WDH are merely employees, not news reporters, editorialists or policy makers. One inputs data. Could you please offer an example of how that person’s bias would be reflected in job performance? I fail to see it. Also, I asked earlier what about the rural newspaper deliverers. They are Gannett employees. Should they be prohibited from engaging in the political process? I fail to see why. Surely, a policy aimed at journalistic ethics does not apply to them.
The final difference is the most important. Perhaps you missed it. Not participating in the recall petition signing is not neutral. If you (or I) do not sign it is anything but a neutral act, in spite of what Gannett would have you believe. Rather it is an action directed at preventing the recall because it effects obtaining enough signatures. If you do not sign because you oppose the recall, you make it harder to obtain the required number of signatures. If you sign out of neutrality, you make it harder to obtain the required number of signatures. The result is exactly the same. But Gannett has chosen to claim that everyone of their employees who did not sign was publicly neutral. Do you believe that? It defies reason to believe that not one or two of them didn’t sign because they opposed the recall. But it doesn’t matter because everyone who did not sign for whatever reason performed an action that worked to prevent the recall. And there is nothing at all neutral in that. Since the petitions are public, it can be argued that everyone whose name does not appear expressed a bias against the recall. Can’t it?
On the other hand, Pat Snyder does not have a right guaranteed in the state constitution to be on the air. The management of the radio station made that call. But if it had decided that he had to leave when he became a candidate none of his rights would have been curtailed. It’s a significant difference. And one that you seem to ignore when you equate the two situations.
Jim, I don’t think Gannett’s enunciating their policy would have done anything. Couldn’t this policy be simply seen as voter intimidation by the employer? Especially since the policy prohibits the employee from supporting the recall (signing the petition) but completely sanctions the action necessary to oppose it (not signing)? Enunciating a flawed policy doesn’t make it better.
At this point I do not even know what to say.
Enjoy your discussion.
Dino,
You don’t know what to say? Here are some simple questions:
1. Does Gannett’s stated policy require its employees to forfeit their right to articipate in the elective process?
Yes.
2. Is not signing the recall petition the action required by Gannett to be neutral, also the exact action required by people who oppose the recall?
Yes.
3. Is there any way Gannett, or you or me or anyone else, can guarantee that the people who did not sign did so out of neutrality and not out of oppostion?
No.
4. Does not signing, in reality, act as a means to oppose the recall because it works to prevent the required number of signatures from being reached?
Yes.
5. Are employees who are not engaged in news gathering, reporting, or editiorializing really journalists or another kind of employee?
Yes.
6. Do qualified citizens of Wisconsin have the constitutional right to participate in the elective process, regardless of the wishes of their employer?
Yes.
7. Is the right to be on the radio a constitutionally guaranteed right for all citizens of Wisconsin?
No.
8. Does an employer have the right, as an employer, to have a policy that requires its employees to forfeit a right guaranteed to them in the state constitution?
No.
Simple questions. And simple answers.
I am glad you have answers to your questions.
Hang on. Is there an actual Gannett policy that forbids employees’ involvement? From Dino’s original post it just sounds like a self-important, passive-aggressive Facebook post from this Lehman guy. Yap yap yap, whatever.
Michlig…I spoke to a Gannett employee, and they sign a policy that applies to political activity that apparently applies in this case.
Signing a recall petition is a right that’s guaranteed by the Wisconsin State Constitution. I’d love to see Gannett try to defend this policy in court.
What is again overlooked is that not signing the recall petition is in itself a political act. Not signing works to prevent the threshold of signatures necessary to bring about the election. There is no neutral position in this instance. You sign and you support the recall election. you don’t sign – for whatever reason – and you work to prevent the election.
Does the Gannett policy also require that it’s employees not vote? I doubt it and I fail to see the difference. Both actions, voting and signing the recall petition are legitimate parts of the elective process in Wisconsin. And both are guaranteed to the citizens of the state. And, again, not signing the petition is a form of political activity. Hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin citizens did not sign because they oppose the recall. It is nonsensical to suggest that this nonsigning is not, on its face, a form of political activity. I’ll bet Pat Snyder did not sign, as an example. But he did not sign because he was neutral. And it is just as reasonable to assume, given the division in the state, that at least one or two Gannett employees did not sign because they oppose the recall. After all, hundreds of thousands of eligible citizens did not sign. And not all, if any, of them were neutral. Plus the result of their actions is 100% not a neutral thing.
In this instance the Gannett policy in nonsensical. Signing is a political activity. Not signing, for whatever reason, is a political activity. Once the recall petitions began to be circulated every eligible citizen in the state was forced to decide. Signing made the recall more likely. Not signing made the recall less likely. Every choice resulted in a political action. And every choice is a part of the public record. The two WDH employees who signed publicly took an action to make the recall election more likely. And all the rest who did not sign publicly took a position – by their names not appearing – making the recall less likely. Not only is the Gannett policy a frightening intrusion into the political rights of its employees, it creates a situation where whatever an employee does he or she stands in violation of the policy.
The State Journal has the same policy, and their editor explains why: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/opinion/column/john-smalley-why-our-journalists-can-t-sign-petitions/article_ac69a7e7-70ed-5b5b-a40a-3ea189f95004.html
Agree or not (I’m still deciding), it’s worth the read, as he addresses points brought up here.
As far as I’m concerned, Smalley’s credibility goes out the window when he compares exercising a constitutionally-guaranteed right to drinking Pepsi in a Coke truck.
Of the 120 or so comments in that article, there are a lot of rumblings about the political leanings and outright direct political involvement and PAC donations of the WSJ’s board of directors. So it appears to be a “do as I say, not as I do” situation for Mr. Smalley and others at the top.
Does 55o AM THE NEWS STATION have a similar policy? Does running for office fall under it?
I’ve read that and it’s the same argument others have offered. But he does not address two crucial issues. The first is that not signing is also a public non neutral act. It’s public because if your name doesn’t appear it is public knowledge that you did not sign. And while you could claim you did not sign out of neutrality that really doesn’t matter. What matters is that not signing is a public a matter as signing is. And the act is nonneutral because not signing has the effect of making the collection of the necessary number of signatures more difficult. As I stated earlier there is no neutral position in this issue. Signing, for whatever reason, is an activity that promotes the recall election. And not signing, for whatever reason, is an activity that makes the recall less likely. There is no neutral position. There is no third ‘I choose not get involved’ option.
The second flaw in his defense of the policy is the assumption that not signing displays a neutral position. Aside from the obvious that the effect of not signing is not at all neutral (and should not be ignored in the discussion), this position further ignores that the proper action to oppose the recall – not signing – is exactly the action he, and Gannett and others, promote as displaying neutrality. Suggesting that a policy that prohibits signing is somehow neutral assumes two things. First, that the motive of the person who did not sign is to be neutral and not to be in opposition. It’s impossible to prove that. And, second, that the neutral response is really that, neutral. When it isn’t. Not signing serves to hinder the accumulation of the necessary signatures. A action that has the eventual effect to favor one side over the other is not neutral.
I note two other things in his column. First, he mentions that people have accused the policy of violating the “constitutional rights” of the employees. I think it does and is a crucial element in the controversy. But he never addresses whether he believes that the policy does not, or that the policy does and he doesn’t care about that. He mentions that he has been accused of it but never says whether the accusations are accurate.
The other thing is that he is clear to identify the concerned people as being “reporters, editors and other journalists” He further says that “mainline journalists” should not display their opinions on the news pages (interestingly, the recall petition now is nothing more nor less than the front page of his newspaper). But he makes no mention of other employees, like someone who display ads and someone who inputs data. A distinction the WDH did not make.
Serious question: has any of this supposed “disciplining” of petition-signing employees gone beyond a symbolic slap on the wrist? It seems to me that – especially for conservative-leaning outlets like the WSJ, WTMJ and (indeed) 550 AM – the real goal here is for these newspapers/stations to protect their reputations and their bottom line. Given the shaky legality of anyone getting fired for exercising a constitutionally-guaranteed right, this seems like a lot of huff-and-puff.
I’d wager that the “discipline” has only gone as far as a slap on the wrist, or snarky FB post in the case of the WDH situation.
I’d like to think WSJ, Gannett, etc. know in their heart of hearts that this policy is inconsistent at best, downright unfair at worst. And their bumbling interpretation of how this policy relates to signing (or not signing) a recall petition shows their lack of understanding of constitutional rights. Perhaps someone getting fired prompts a lawsuit which draws greater attention, eventually leading to a full-scale investigation into the constitutionality of said policy.
So they’ll feign outrage knowing full well they don’t have a leg to stand on (just completing my thought).
I bet you’re right.
I wanted to give this some thought, and I did. I want to be clear up front, I do not have any justification for the policy put forth by Gannett. It is not my intent to support nor condemn it.
I also think that spending time on the Gannett thing is a distraction from the fact that a candidate for office has access to the resources of one of the larger media operations in Wisconsin, Midwest Communications, while his opponent does not. I cannot imagine that this is what the rule creators at the FCC had in mind.
But, to come back to Gannett for a short second look. I have written about and studied the work of George Seldes extensively. I came away from this discussion and ended up thinking about Seldes, and his attacks on advertising in newspapers back in his day, and his creation of his paper IN FACT.
One of the things that I find interesting is this. One of the common attacks from the right is that the media has a liberal bias. The media in all its forms is sensitive to this attack, and over the years has taken steps to ensure that it is not. One of these steps is asking its employees to forgo membership in Political Parties, and Partisan activities.
This is a request made as a result of a real and fair criticism born out of media critics like Seldes who railed against the taint of influence on the news.
So, the media in an effort to regulate itself asks of its members that they agree to forgo partisanship. What is ironic is that this act of defense by the media is attacked by people in this discussion.
Is it Constitutional to ask someone to sign a piece of paper that would ask them to not do something they are legally allowed? I wonder. If the employee is an at will employee, and it is a condition of employment applied equally to all hires, I wonder if it is constitutional.
It is not a denial of anyones right to sign a recall, or join a party, but rather a set of guidelines that employment is measured by. I think it is confusing to lay this at the feet of the constitution, the same way it is confusing to see people hoist the First Amendment in situations that are not about government intervention into speech.
Furthermore, I find it interesting that we are both unwilling and hyper critical of this action NOW. This policy is not new. Even a rudimentary search finds policies like this existing in the 80s (honestly I just had to stop googling, but I am sure it goes back further).
Seldes pointed out that a newsroom influenced by advertisers is not a newsroom. He talked about the coercion of the news.
As a result publishers endeavored to respond. The delineated news and advertising, created structures for political involvement in the news room. Reporters took on these practices as well.
I never knew how Kronkite voted. The same way I have no idea how Mentzer, Uhlig, or Wasson have voted.
Snyder though, he has a news program, and is running for office as a Republican.
So, where does that leave us? I think it leaves the media trying to answer its long time critics, and create structure and policy, and oversight to respond to the criticism that the news is influenced by subjective forces. I think it leaves the media struggling even further because the very biased it was supposedly insuring it did not have is once again challenged, this time in the other direction.
I am left wondering if there is anyway for the media to win. One hand calls it a liberal rag, with political desires. And it is my understanding that another side is upset that it would regulate its at will employees even to insure that there is no bias.
I wonder what is left. So, this policy is not good enough for either side.
Furthermore, I am wondering when we will return to the discussion about a journalist Pat Snyder, with the resources of Midwest Communications at his disposal, and running for office as a member of a political party? Has Snyder made one campaign call from work? Does 550 AM allow him personal time on company computers? Does 550 AM subsidize his cellphone? Has a campaign call been made on his office phone? A capmaign email?
Is Pat Snyder using midwest Communications resources to run for office as a republican?
Will his political opponents, and the democratic party seek this information? And will a yes to any of these questions disqualify Pat from running? Furthermore, what does it mean for the FCC license given to Midwest Communication to have a staff member potentially using company resources to run for office?
Mind you, I have no idea if he did, but I wonder.
Dino -
Perhaps you should think this over a little more. To wit:
“One of these steps is asking its employees to forgo membership in Political Parties, and Partisan activities.”
That’s only applicable if you stretch the definition of partisan activities to include engaging, as a citizen, in the elective process. Then you could further define voting itself as a partisan activity.
“So, the media in an effort to regulate itself asks of its members that they agree to forgo partisanship. What is ironic is that this act of defense by the media is attacked by people in this discussion.”
Again, only applicable if you define participating in the electoral process as partisanship. There is a great difference between participating in the electoral process by voting, signing the recall etc. and attempting to influence that process. This attempt to influence the outcome of the process is what I would call partisanship, not the participation in it. Normally the signing of a petition would be seen as an attempt to influence those who are involved in the decision making to act in a certain way. But in the recall process, the signing is a necessary part of the process itself
A company policy that tries to prevent an employee from influencing the outcome of the process is much different than a policy that attempts to prevent employees from participating in the process itself.
“Furthermore, I find it interesting that we are both unwilling and hyper critical of this action NOW”
It’s NOW because this is the first time it has effected a basic elective process. A recall petition is a unique political document. It’s also NOW because it is apparent that this policy clearly does not accomplish it’s goal. It prohibits the action to promote a cause but it endorses the action necessary to hinder it. This policy NOW not only doesn’t prevent the perception of influencing the news, it actually serves to influence the news. The policy has the very real effect of endorsing actions opposed to the recall while prohibiting actions in support of it.
“It is not a denial of anyones right to sign a recall”
It absolutely is. The state constitution clearly delineates both the number of signatures required for a recall to occur and the eligibility requirements of those who can sign. And, unless the constitution reads that in order to sign your employer has to allow it, the employee’s right to sign (under the state constitution) is denied under this policy.
“The same way I have no idea how Mentzer, Uhlig, or Wasson have voted”
No, but you do know that, because they did not sign, they took an action that tended to make the recall election less likely. The same action that Scott Walker, Pam Galloway, Pat Snyder and hundreds of thousands of others took in opposition to the recall. The absence of their names is a matter of the public record, as much as the names of the two employees who signed are. So please don’t hold up those who did not sign as acting in a neutral fashion unless you are willing to include Walker, Galloway, and Snyder in the neutral category. The result of everyone’s action is exactly the same.
“And it is my understanding that another side is upset that it would regulate its at will employees even to insure that there is no bias”
Of course, in the unique case of a recall petition, the policy makes it impossible to be nonbiased. Two employees signed – the correct response for those who support the recall. You mention three WDH employees who did not sign – the correct response of those who oppose the recall. When the supposed “neutral” response has the same effect as one of the ‘biased’ choices there can no longer be a “neutral” position.
I think that you, and your use of Seldes, fail to differentiate between participating in the democratic process itself and attempting to influence that process. It’s one thing to tell your employees that they cannot belong to a political party and quite another to tell them they cannot vote (or sign a recall petition that is a necessary prerequisite to the vote). Remember that Seldes also said that no truth is found in the media because the “truth is a dagger pointed at its heart, which is its pocketbook”. So Seldes, the person you cite, would find an attempt to demonstrate the lack of bias to be a hoax since there already is a bias in the media towards those who pay the bills.
As to Snyder – I’ve said all along you are right on that. But, given the programming and editorial position of WSAU, it would be hard to argue that they attempt to be seen as unbiased. There is a clear attempt to follow the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit of it. Of course, the spirit of the law is open to interpretation and the management of WSAU would argue that it’s interpretation is legitimate, whether you or I agree with them or not.
I think it is fair to say that signing a recall petition is actively seeking to influence the outcome. Because if no one signs the petition, there is no recall election.
So, signing is an affirming act, seeking a specific outcome.
I also think you mischarecterize George Seldes with that one quote, but thats fine. It is a good quote.
Maybe the Gannett part of this discussion took on a life of its own because it’s more nuanced, more layers. As far as WSAU and Snyder, I think his, um, “news” gathering activities have been in question for some time now. The fact that he is still on the air feels inappropriate (though legal), but are we really surprised that he would do that?
“I think it is fair to say that signing a recall petition is actively seeking to influence the outcome. Because if no one signs the petition, there is no recall election”
No, signing a recall petition is a part of two step process to determine the outcome (and so is not signing). If no one signs the petition there is no recall, you’re right, but the law stipulates that there has to be a petition. And the law further sets the qualifications for who can sign and how many have to sign. If I run for office and more people vote for my opponent than vote for me, then I lose. That’s the process. Applying your logic, then voting is an attempt to influence the outcome, not the actual determination of the outcome. So, an employer has the right to prohibit its employees from voting? Trying to get me to vote in a certain way, is an attempt to influence the outcome. But voting (or signing a legally required petition) is determining the outcome.
And not signing, which the WDH would have us believe is an honorable act of neutrality is also determining the outcome. If no one signed, as you suggest, there would be recall election. And even one who did not sign acted in a biased way to prevent the recall election.
Letting Pat Snyder remain on the radio is, and I think both of us agree, on that, a way to attempt to influence the outcome. But no matter how much he is on the air, there still has to be an election to determine who the winner is. There is a difference between influencing the outcome of an election and determining the outcome of an election.
I stand by the Seldes quote as a accurate statement of what he felt about the American media.
ANd I have just completely lost the thread here.
So, signing a petition is a right. It is also not a poltical statement affirming anything, other than…
Also NOT signing a recall petition is a political affirmation of something…
I do not see how Gannett employees or really anyone could escape this now.
So, not signing, that is not nuetral?
I agree with tmichlig and matthew on Snyder. I think your question is a good and fair one, but the fact is that – unless Snyder and/or 550 are breaking any regulations – they have no obligation to take him off the air. Given that he’s a relatively successful radio personality, I can understand their unwillingness to give him up. Plus, if I was Snyder, I’d fight tooth and nail if they tried to remove me with no legal grounds.
As far as Gannett, I also second what tmichlig and matthew said. Three things in addition:
1) I want to point out another answer to your question about why we care about this now. Let’s be clear: the names of recall signers matter now because the Walker supporters made it an issue. There have been recalls before (including the recall of the Milwaukee County Executive that led to Scott Walker’s election there), but never have the names of the petition signers become a weapon. (And nobody at Gannett, WTMJ or anyone else ever made an announcement about disciplining signers of previous recall petitions.) Conservative groups have been very explicit about their desire to make the names public in order to shame/intimidate the signers. That’s what made this an issue, and their efforts have now been validated by Gannett, TMJ, etc. It’s an attempt to dissuade people from signing recall petitions, pure and simple.
2) I gotta disagree with this statement: “[i]t is not a denial of anyones right to sign a recall, or join a party, but rather a set of guidelines that employment is measured by. I think it is confusing to lay this at the feet of the constitution.” Here’s why I disagree. As Matthew points out, the state Constitution explicitly guarantees the right of recall, whereas it does not guarantee the right to be active in a political party. If Gannett established a policy that prevented people from signing a recall petition, then they’re openly contradicting what’s in the state Constitution. This is why – as we’ve all pointed out – it’s unlikely that Gannett will fire anyone over this. They’d be inviting a lawsuit, and a whole lot of bad publicity.
3) I agree with you that there are people who didn’t sign the recall petitions because they wanted to remain neutral, but – as Matthew says – it’s impossible to determine the reason they didn’t sign. That’s the problem with Gannett’s decision, and Lehman’s statement. You’re punishing some people for a political act, but you’re assuming a neutrality for other people who don’t necessarily possess it. It’s not anybody’s *fault* that this is the case, but it’s the reality nonetheless.
“I do not see how Gannett employees or really anyone could escape this now.
So, not signing, that is not nuetral?”
Dino, I made this point several times already, but I’ll do it again. I said that the policy is nonsensical in this instance because there is no ‘neutral’ position. In a normal election you can not vote, and your decision to not vote has no impact on the outcome because the majority of the votes cast determines the winner.
But a recall is different. The law species exactly how many signatures must be obtained in order for the recall to proceed, and it specifies who can legally sign. Anyone who signs has clearly taken a political action in support of the recall. But anyone who does not sign, for whatever the reason, has just as clearly taken a political action in opposition to the recall. If I am a legally eligible citizen and I choose not to sign I reduce the potential pool of eligible signers by one – a small reduction, but a reduction nevertheless. So the required number of signers must now come from a slightly reduced pool of eligible signers.
Not signing is further not neutral because not signing makes it a little more difficult to obtain the required number of signatures. The end result of not signing has the effect of reducing the chance that the recall will occur. And, again as I stated earlier, if the effect of an action serves to aid one side of an issue and hinder the other, the action, in this case not signing, is not neutral.
Also, in this case the action required to oppose the recall is exactly the same action that Gannett says is required to be neutral. So the policy serves to eliminate the action necessary to support the recall – signing the petition – and at the same time endorsing the action necessary to oppose the recall – not signing the petition – by saying it is neutral.
Scott Walker, Pam Galloway and hundreds of thousands of others did not sign. But according to Gannett, they didn’t do it becaused they opposed the recall. They did it by demonstrating their neutrality. As to those who claim to have not signed out of a desire to remain neutral, they demonstrated their neutrality by acting in the exact manner necessary to oppose the recall. Regardless of the motive the action was anything but neutral. It favored one side, the opposition to the recall, while hindering the other, the side favoring the recall. There is no neutrality in that.
I said earlier the it was impossible for Gannett employees to demonstrate neutrality in this issue. Everyone of them had to decide to sign or not to sign, for whatever reason. But all of them who signed did something that increased the chance the recall would occur. Those who chose not to sign did something that decreased the chance the recall would occur by making it more difficult to get the required number of signatures. There is no neutral action possible in this case.
And there is no secrecy in either choice, either. The petitions are public documents. So the names of the people who signed are subject to public scrutiny. But also subject to scrutiny are the names missing from the petition. It is a matter of the public record that two WDH employees signed. And it is just as public that the rest did not. There is no element of secrecy in any of it.
The recall process is unique in that it allows for no option to not get involved. The typical way to stay out of an issue is to not participate. But in the case of a recall not participating is actually an action that hinders the case of the recall suceeding. There is no neutral position in a recall petition.
” Anyone who signs has clearly taken a political action in support of the recall. But anyone who does not sign, for whatever the reason, has just as clearly taken a political action in opposition to the recall.”
I disagree with your assumption of intent. It is absurd to think that everyone who has not signed a petition opposes the recall, that is just not realistic.
Charles, you have more history in your bones than most of us (not an implication of age, though you and I are both much older than we probably ever thought we would be), and I wonder what you make of these types of policies, regardless of the Constitutionality of it, in the light of historical context.
The policies exist, by all discussion in a 45 minute googling session, as a defense to the criticism that started with people like Seldes and other early media critics.
It seems like this is a no win in the eyes of you and matthew. So, if the paper does not have a policy against political involvement by its staff then it is open to criticism by either side of political leanings. If it makes the smallest gesture, this policy, then you and matthew and others probably call them unconstitutional.
These surely are interesting times.
“If it makes the smallest gesture, this policy, then you and matthew and others probably call them unconstitutional.”
Oh come on, Dino, that’s not fair. I’ve repeatedly said that the signing of a recall petition shouldn’t be prevented by the Gannett policy because it is *specifically* guaranteed in the state constitution. If Gannett wants to limit other sorts of political activity by their staff which is *not* guaranteed by law – involvement in a political party, open politicking in social media, etc. – they have the right to do so, provided the employees have agreed to the policy and are aware of it.
As far as history, I certainly understand the institutional anxiety that led to this point, and I understand the desire by media outlets to prevent criticism by trying to demonstrate the impartiality of their staff. That being said, I am wary any time a private employer wishes to limit the political expression of their employees. Those policies are not inherently wrong, but they must be crafted carefully and enforced fairly. I’m not sure that Gannett (or the Wisconsin State Journal, or WTMJ) did either thing in this case. (And remember the key point that Matthew raised: THE GANNETT EMPLOYEES WHO SIGNED THE RECALL PETITION WERE NOT JOURNALISTS. That, to me, makes Gannett’s reaction completely indefensible.)
One more thing: I don’t really want to make this discussion even more theoretical, but I’ve long worried about the very definition of “media bias.” The assumption – among many on both political sides – is that one’s personal political beliefs will unavoidably taint their professional conduct. (“This reporter has given money to Republicans, so he must be biased,” or “This newscaster supports Democrats, so her reporting must be slanted.”) But, as far as I can tell, a member of the media is “biased” only if their WORK is biased, displaying a demonstrably inaccurate or tainted viewpoint. In this case, the assumption that any journalist/broadcaster who signed a Walker recall petition must have a “liberal bias” is faulty.
Finally, I’ll leave the Seldes analysis to Dino and Matthew, but I’d also suggest that we’re overlooking a far more recent precedent for this obsession with impartiality. The rise of Fox News, which promoted itself as “fair and balanced” and accused other media outlets of being biased, has clearly created a significantly heightened atmosphere over questions of impartiality in the media. Fox News’ fans like the network because it’s “unbiased,” just as MSNBC’s viewers often describe the network as a corrective to Fox’s conservative spin. Regardless of where one stands on the issue, this confrontational media moment (in which fans of various papers/stations/websites are pitted against each other in an ongoing info war) seems to me to CLEARLY be a consequence of the rise in cable news, and Fox News in particular.
“Oh come on, Dino, that’s not fair. I’ve repeatedly said that the signing of a recall petition shouldn’t be prevented by the Gannett policy because it is *specifically* guaranteed in the state constitution. If Gannett wants to limit other sorts of political activity by their staff which is *not* guaranteed by law – involvement in a political party, open politicking in social media, etc. – they have the right to do so, provided the employees have agreed to the policy and are aware of it.”
I do not understand. How come you draw line? Social Media is speech, politicking is speech as well. Somewhere that is a constitutionally protected right. Yet, you concede that Gannett is well within their rights to do that limitation, yet apparently the right of the recall petition is where you hold sacred?
I think that this confrontational tone in media is far older than that. There was a time in this country that LABOR had its own newspapers in urban centers. I believe in the 30s and 40s New York had over 50 dailies, Chicago dozens. This confrontational force is not new. In fact now it seems more watered down, and less consequential, with everyone pretending to be unbiased. The faux unbiased makes everything seem like mayonaise.
“I disagree with your assumption of intent. It is absurd to think that everyone who has not signed a petition opposes the recall, that is just not realistic.”
No, Dino, I assume no intent. It’s unknowable (except to the person involved). Please note that I said “regardless of intent”. The action cannot be evaluated without accounting for the effect. And the effect in not signing is exactly the same whether you do not sign out opposition to the recall or if you do not sign out of attempt to remain neutral. The effect of not signing is to make the recall election less likely. The motive for not signing does not factor in. And, because it favors one side over the other, it is not neutral.
I agree that it is unknowable to claim that everyone who did not sign did it out of a sense of neutrality. But, and this is what Gannett did, it is equally not realistic to assume that everyone who did not sign – on the statewide basis and among the employees of Gannett as well – did so out of a sense of neutrality. Both are unknowable. But Gannett took the step of publicly criticizing those who signed and praising those who did not. So they have to assume that all of their employees who did not sign did so out of a sense of neutrality. We both agree that is unknowable. And it is one of the major problem with Gannett’s action. Their policy has the effect of prohibiting the action necessary to support the recall, but it endorses the action necessary to oppose the recall. The motive is both unknowable and irrelevant in the sense of the effect of not signing.
“yet apparently the right of the recall petition is where you hold sacred?”
Not just Charles and I (and others). the Milwaukee Journal discussed this yesterday because a right wing group reported that some employees of the District Attorney’s office had signed the recall petition. 43, in fact, including 20 attorneys. when the Journal contacted the DA’s office, Kent Lovern, the Chief Deputy District Attorney replied:
“It would be against Wisconsin law for the District Attorney to prohibit employees of the office from participating in the democratic process”
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/146719805.html
Perhaps that explains why there are no firings and/or other discipline taking place. It’s against the law to prohibit employees from doing this. Unless you consider Gannett and its policies to supercede Wisconsin law.