Progressive (i.e. liberal) online-only outlets Talking Points Memo, Salon and Ebony are joining the White House Press Pool. The Huffington Post will soon join as well. It wasn't the Obama administration that approved their application to join this group; it was other reporters, through the White House Correspondents Association.
Canada has something like this known as the Parliamentary Press Gallery. The Press Gallery is made up of about 300 or so journalists who work regularly on Parliament Hill. We have a constitution, our own staff, and each year we hold elections for president, an executive, and a board of directors. I've been an elected director for two years. One of the issues I and other Gallery executive are grappling with is trying to decide who's a journalist and who's not in this age of blogs and online-only media. We've been looking around the world at other organizations, like the White House Correspondents Association, to see how they're dealing with this issue.
One of the big sticking points seems to be the political slant of some Web sites applying for accreditation. This issue cropped up when Talking Points Memo applied and received a pool spot:
“If liberals are upset that Fox News is being treated as a legitimate news organization instead of a GOP talking-points channel, then it's mystifying that the [White House Correspondents' Association] is broadening ‘news’ media to encompass blogs and websites that raged against the Bush White House,” said Tim Graham, director of media analysis for the Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog group.
“Would anyone seriously suggest that TPM, the Huffington Post and Salon are more objective than Fox News?” Graham asked.
Personally, I think it's dangerous if journalists groups start deciding who's a journalist based on perceived editorial angles. Journalists' groups should stand for free speech and for as big a tent as possible. Canada's press gallery is still working towards some new definitions and here's some of the things I've been suggesting we consider:
1. Are you a professional? The Gallery or the Corros' Association is for people who earn their paycheque reporting from Parliament Hill or the White House.2. Are you a member of a political party or a group working for political goals? Then you're not for us.3. Do you need full-time access to the Hill or the White House? We hand out day passes to those who want to report on the budget and other one-off events, but voting rights only goes to those who are around the Hill everyday.
“2. Are you a member of a political party or a group working for political goals? Then you're not for us.”
I was under the impression that journalists were not permitted to be members of any political party in order to give the appearance at least of impartiality. Obviously there are some who clearly lean one way or another.
For instance Lawrence Martin and Susan Delacourt have had special access to the Liberal Party, and that shows in everything they write, L. Ian Macdonald is a Progressive Conservative, and that's fair enough. Others, like CTV's Roger Smith, are married to someone who works for the Liberals, which I find a bit more problematic. If half your household income is courtesy of the Liberal Party, it must be really hard to report objectively.
I may be reading too much into your comment, David, but it sounds like you are saying that at this time there is no problem with journalists being card-carrying party members. I don't object to that, provided there is full disclosure in everything they report. Commentators on business news programs are required to acknowledge if they own shares in investments they recommend. Similarly journalists should be required to indicate their political loyalties if they exist.
First: My friend Roger Smith is married to Denise Chong who does not work for the Liberal Party.
Second: Commentators are not required to acknowledge shares in investments but 'quality publications/programs' will make best efforts to do so.
Third: Most news organizations (us, cbc, ctv, the Globe, etc.) discourage and often ban any kind of activism among reporters — from political parties or environmental groups to local school boards.
1) Sorry about Roger Smith, I obviously got the wrong information there.
2)”Not required” ? Name me one business-related program on TV that does not have the commentators acknowledge any investments they have in the companies recommended.
3) Most news organizations discourage activism ?
Right, I guess that's why the CBC and the DTV channels have focussed so intensively on Peter Donolo becoming the new chief of staff to the Leader of the Official Opposition,and ergo the new saviour of the Liberal Party.
So the answer to my question is apparently that reporters can, if they wish, be card-carrying members of political parties with no obligation to report that fact. That kind of makes a mockery of what you were trying to say in your original post.