A bias here may not be a bias there.

Kiley Landusky
kl290311@ohio.edu

How do we eliminate bias in the media when our country so fervently supports having the ability to voice our own opinions? One of the biggest ethical dilemmas for journalists is burying their own beliefs in order to serve audiences fairly. Here we have to sacrifice personal lives for professional lives.

The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics tells us to act independently, to avoid conflicts of interest and to voice any that are unavoidable. This seems simple enough, but applied in real life shows there are very blurred lines in deciding what really is a conflict of interest.

SPJ has a section on their website discussing case studies where ethical issues are evaluated. One about a journalist named Frank Whelan discusses the issue of supporting gay rights while being employed as a news writer. Because it was mentioned in his employer’s code of ethics that no one may “take part in demonstrations either in favor of or opposed to a cause,” he was penalized for being a co-grand marshal with his partner in their local gay pride parade.

This raises the question of how restricted journalists have to be outside of the workplace, and also whether supporting gay rights can be considered a political protest. In Whelan’s case, his involvement in the parade was considered political support, and got him a two-day unpaid suspension. He then sued his employer for discrimination in violation of a city ordinance, age discrimination and defamation, and settled all three cases out of court.

How would this play out in different journalistic venues? YouTube user Christian Brown’s interview with Trish Bendix managing editor of www.afterellen.com shows there is more flexibility in other media sources. www.afterellen.com reviews TV shows with an LGBT-friendly angle. Bendix thinks it is important for journalists to express their points of view, especially if they are gay or lesbian, in order to better inform small corners of the world about their presence.

She also observes the dilemma in defining support of gay rights as biased. She says, “The thing is, like, you don’t want to be promoting a gay agenda, you’re just promoting fairness and equality and so if that means I’m an advocate because I’m writing that we should demand these things from the reflections of us in entertainment, in our media, then I guess I’m an advocate.” Bendix’s position as a journalist gives her much more room to voice her opinions than Whelan’s, being that she oversees an entity that is so supportive of the LGBT community.

Personally, I do not think that advocating for the LGBT community necessarily is a form of political discourse that should be banned for journalists. If anything, this adds more perspective to a team of reporters and may welcome more audiences. It is a shame that Mr. Whelan got caught in an ethical dilemma where his personal life dictated the future of his professional life, but I suppose that may be my own bias. I guess, “to each his own,” with respect to the rules and expectations of media outlets.