Changing views on conflicts of interest

I don’t remember the exact quote, so I will paraphrase.

It was from a book by former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. He was discussing how to be more involved in your community.

Essentially, he said, “If you want to know what’s going on in your community, go to your city council meeting or go to your school board meeting,” but, he warned, “don’t go too often because then you might want to run.”

By AUSTIN LEWTER, Director, Texas Center for Community Journalism

It is a sentiment I’ve seen play out time and time again in my career covering community government.

Lately, it is sentiment I’ve seen more and more from folks who might previously have been advised not to run for office.

I know several newspaper folks across the state who also serve in public office —  city council or school board.

In a different time, this dual role of newspaper and elected official may be seen as the conflict of interest.

It may still be seen that way.

The traditional journalistic mindset is that journalists should not hold elected or appointed public office because doing so creates a real – or perceived – conflict of interest.

Journalists are expected to independently scrutinize government and public officials.

Holding office makes the journalist a part of the institution they may be responsible for covering – potentially compromising, or appearing to compromise, their independence.

Traditionally, the concern generally rests on three principles.

• Independence: Journalists should remain separate from the people and institutions they cover.

• Avoiding conflicts of interest: Public office can require taking positions, making policy decisions or advocating for particular outcomes.

• Maintaining public trust: Even if a journalist believes they can remain objective, readers may reasonably question whether political responsibilities influence coverage.

This thinking is reflected in the SPJ Code of Ethics, which advises journalists to “avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.”

In short, the traditional view is that a journalist’s job is to hold public officials accountable, not simultaneously be one of them.

But the SPJ Code of Ethics also tells us that if a potential conflict of interest exists, name it.

And this is what the newspapers I know are doing when someone on staff gets elected to office.

They are approaching it with transparency and have public reporting policies.

Essentially, the journalists who are office holders recuse themselves from any reporting about the board on which they sit.   

The defer all editorial judgment to someone else and make that policy public.

Some are even employing third-party contract reporters to handle those beats.

Is it traditional? No.

Is it ideal? Probably not.

But, is it okay? I’m beginning to think so.

More and more, I question whether news people being in public office is actually a conflict of interest –  at least at the local level.

A friend told me a long time ago, “We live in a small town. And in a small town, if everybody only does one thing, nothing will get done. People must multitask.”

I understand his point and agree with it, but I have also come to retort that – if EVERYBODY, actually did ONE thing, then we wouldn’t have any problems. Everything would get done.

But I digress.

Alas, yes, we live in small towns and people wear multiple hats, and that’s okay.

I travel the state and I talk to newspaper folks who are not as blessed as some of their peers.

Some folks are dealing with city councils who blatantly want to suppress information and are willing to risk the public’s right to know.

Just last week, a newspaper publisher in Central Texas told me his city council has decided not to send state mandated public notices to him for publication.

They are willing to roll the dice about possible repercussions.

I was also told recently that representatives from a statewide government association are telling members that after this next legislative session, they’ll never need to post another public notice again.

This is disheartening, but it’s nothing new.

Every two years, some lawmakers seek to strip public notices from publication.

It’s an ongoing battle the TPA fights daily.

So, all this being said, maybe a community is served well by someone who wears both hats – news person and elected official.

A newspaper person’s first ethical dedication is to the publics’ right to know.

This dedication supplants all others.

It is why we do what we do.

If city halls and school boards and courthouses want to stifle public information, then perhaps your community world be better represented by somebody who does not.

Maybe that editor will be an advocate in their position in elected government.

Maybe they will approach the position for the sake of honest transparency.

Big media companies have employee policies requiring one to resign to run for public office.

I’ve worked at places like this.

It’s pretty simple – if you want to run for school board, you can’t work there.

Corporate owned public media companies often do not represent the pulse of the communities they serve. They don’t get it.

The independent, family-owned newsroom is staffed and owned by people who reflect the community because they are members of the community.

We live here. We work here. We pay taxes here. Our kids play together. We volunteer together.

If that commitment to community involves holding elected office, running a newspaper and raising money for the booster club or PTO – so be it.

I guess at the end of the day, it is really up to the voters and readers to determine what is a conflict of interest.

Austin Lewter is executive director of the Texas Center for Community Journalism, based at Tarleton State University. He also serves as instructor of journalism at the university and faculty adviser for the Texan News Service and J-TAC newspaper. Additionally, he is a working owner and publisher of several Texas weekly newspapers.