New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | October 19, 2004

Now that we've shown you our votes, Matt Welch argues that all journalists should stop hiding behind their "cleansed" consciences and admit how they're voting.

Comments

|10.19.04 @ 2:42PM|#

2004 Bush
2000 Bush
1996 Dole
1992 Perot

Drew Carey writes for y'all?

|10.19.04 @ 2:51PM|#

Elmer Fudd? Is he the head porker of his party? Isn`t their slogan "bring on the bacon"?That Walker is a sharp dude.

|10.19.04 @ 2:52PM|#

Judging by your votes, I'd say we're getting more Bush. It's great to cast a principled vote for the guy who has less chance of winning here than in Albania but if you already know it's hopeless, and that about 50% of the sheeple are voting to (re?)elect the Chimp, you won't have the right to bitch about him for the next four years.

|10.19.04 @ 3:04PM|#

..."sheeple"..."chimp"...God, I'll be glad when this election's over.

|10.19.04 @ 3:07PM|#

Boy, it's depressing to read how so many supersmart people treat the ballot in such a cavalier, jokey, dismissive fashion. Ugh.

Jesse Walker|10.19.04 @ 3:10PM|#

Hydroman: You're thinking of Porky Pig. He's my candidate for senator.

|10.19.04 @ 3:22PM|#

Tim Cavanaugh,
Could you set up a poll here?
Aren't those services cheap?
I figure it would be close to accurate since we are fairly evenly divided.
I'm thinking a poll of who we THINK will win (seeing as how I don't vote).

Highway|10.19.04 @ 3:31PM|#

Depressed,

If the value of our votes was in any way representative of the power the government exerts over us (not related to Constitutional power), I figure a lot more people would take voting more seriously (single votes matter more), or voting wouldn't matter (government holds less power). But in the current situation, voting is an almost sysiphean task, unless you decide you're going to vote for the two major parties which spend the most time making sure that they don't have to let anyone else into their government club. So maybe the 'cavalier', 'jokey', and 'dismissive' manner we treat it in is what we're reduced to thanks to the monopolistic efforts of the two-headed party in power, so we don't have to always think about the rocks we're being squished under.

|10.19.04 @ 3:37PM|#

1984- Reagan
1988- abstain
1992- Marrou
1996- Browne
2000- abstain-protest against Browne?!!!
2004- GW Bush... leaned Peroutka, but Badnarek and JFK are both nutbars deluxe and Ohio is a swing state.

|10.19.04 @ 3:46PM|#

1996 - Clinton
2000 - Gore
2004 - Badnarik

|10.19.04 @ 3:50PM|#

1984 � Whoever had the pot leaf on their ballot
1988 � Libertarian (but I sent $50 to Jerry Brown)
1992 � Perot
1996 � Perot
2000 � Browne
2004 � Badnarik (Bush if NY is close, doubtful)

|10.19.04 @ 3:52PM|#

I don't see what purpose it for a straight news reporter to tell who they're voting for. It would be a complete distraction. If a Bush voter writes an investigative piece about Kerry doing something shady, it is automatically suspect because he's voting for Bush? The partisans on both sides would never read a news story without dwelling on the voting record of the reporter. The facts would never stand on their own. If the reporter is doing his job right, it just doesn't matter who he votes for. If he's not doing his job right... well, then it also doesn't matter.

With opinion journalists, I wouldn't have a problem with disclosing, but it's up to the commentator.

Matt Welch|10.19.04 @ 4:03PM|#

former reporter -- That's exactly what I meant by my column-ending point about trusting the readers. You worry that disclosure will undermine the good works of investigative pieces; I believe that, to the contrary, disclosure will take much of the steam out of Bias Hunting, and force critics to debate stories on their merits, not the imagined bias & agendas.

Maybe disclosure would simply reveal that -- as in my case -- the reporter has never belonged to a political party, in part for reasons of journalism. Or, if the disclosure shows the reporter has voted Democrat, most likely he/she could respond to charges of bias by showing several articles critical of Democrats.

And even if individuals shied away from putting their names on voting records, I think it would be incumbent on news organizations to conduct a *secret* poll of their workers, to see what kind of potential biases are sitting in the newsroom. Wouldn't it be interesting and useful to know, for instance, how L.A. Times staff voted on the recall election? (They are accused constantly of trying to bury Schwarzenegger.) If the reporter or newspaper *doesn't* have a major problem with bias, then disclosure will in fact be a short-cut toward demonstrating precisely that.

fyodor|10.19.04 @ 4:35PM|#

I would expect Elmer Fudd to be a firm supporter of 2nd Amendment rights. But not a very good debater.

fyodor|10.19.04 @ 4:42PM|#

Damn, on that latter point I think I confused Elmer with Porky too!! Oh well, they're all just mouthpieces for Mel Blanc's multiple personality disorder anyway...

|10.19.04 @ 4:52PM|#

Journalists should not vote by secret ballot, but our elected representatives should vote on the public's business in secret.

Two counterintuitives.

|10.19.04 @ 4:52PM|#

The purpose and function of the current "ick! politics" stance in newsrooms of daily papers across the country is to obscure the fact that, overall, editors and reporters are about three or four clicks to the left of most Americans. Moreover, the house faith is particular strain of "do-gooder liberalism" which questions all motives but its own. Still, this would not be much of problem if its practitioners just owned up to their world-view, which is a perfectly valid, internally coherent one. It just happens to be wrong. But we seldom get to engage it as long as the wall of denial exists.

|10.19.04 @ 4:58PM|#

Jeff, that was succinct and precise.

|10.19.04 @ 6:02PM|#

cdunlea-

�elect the Chimp, you won't have the right to bitch about him for the next four years.�

Now which chimp did you want me to vote for? Do me a favor, pull your head out of your ass and read the libertarian platform (www.lp.org). After reading such an inspired and progressive platform how can you vote for either of those republicrat clowns? Don�t bother trying to parse their carbon copy opinions for me. They are identical in one fundamental way. Both want to take my hard earned money and use it to regulate every facet of my life.

1992 � Perot
1996 � no presidantial vote
2000 � Browne
2004 � Badnarik

|10.19.04 @ 6:02PM|#

Journalism was a lot more interesting when the newspapers wore their party affiliations proudly, rather than hide them in the name of journalistic ethics. Only a fool would think the biases disappeared along with the Republican or Democrat name from the masthead.

1972 - John Hospers. (Thank you Professor, for keeping me from living with the shame of voting for Nixon.)
1976 - Roger MacBride
1980 - Ed Clark
1984 - David Berland
1988 - Ron Paul
1992 - Andre Marrou
1996 - Harry Browne
2000 - Browne again, even tho I was not Wild about Harry, he was still was better than any other candidate.
2002 - I know it will be a Michael. Either Badnarik or Peroutka. Ah hell, I have too much invested in the Libertarian Party to switch with out greater provocation. Badnarik it is.

|10.19.04 @ 6:03PM|#

Make that 2004, not 2002.

|10.19.04 @ 6:04PM|#

I wouldn't *force* journalists to make known their votes (not suggesting the posters are, either) but I'd appreciate their doing so. They'd lose no ground with me. That said, the old "what a sorry situation" routine some have taken in suggesting that it's either beneath them to select someone (unless a comic character) is singularly a turn-off for me.

|10.19.04 @ 6:05PM|#

If a Bush voter writes an investigative piece about Kerry doing something shady, it is automatically suspect because he's voting for Bush?

If by "automatically suspect" you mean "is it automatically reasonable to suspect that the reporter is spinning things in a pro-Bush or anti-Kerry manner" then, yeah -- of course it is. The notion that any supporter of a politician can be free from bias when reporting things that concern that politician flies in the face of everything we know about human nature.

The partisans on both sides would never read a news story without dwelling on the voting record of the reporter. The facts would never stand on their own

Reporters don't report facts. They report their version of facts, or their version of what other people have told them are facts. The only people who report something like "facts" are writers for peer-reviewed scientific publications. The simple truth of the matter is that whatever you write or report IS getting filtered through your biases; your biases also inform your decisions about what to cover and how to cover it.

Look at it this way -- say you were covering a murder trial. Two random bystanders say they witnessed a prominent politician shooting the victim. However, two other witnesses, both on record as being strong supporters of the politician in question, say they saw him someplace else at the time of the shooting. Do you mention that the alibi witnesses were supporters of that politician? Or do you just say "two witnesses say they saw him do it, but two others say he was somewhere else"? Of course you mention it. Of course it matters.

It similarly matters, when reading an article describing alleged evidence of wrongdoing by a politician, to know whether or not the person who wrote that article supports that politician. If nothing else, it gives readers a chance to seek out reporters with different biases and see what *their* take is on the matter -- which, in turn, makes it easier for them to determine what the real truth is.

|10.19.04 @ 6:07PM|#

How did "either" sneak into my last sentence? Delete the scamp.

|10.19.04 @ 6:44PM|#

i just hope the non-voters check out LOCAL stuff and see if there is anything to vote against or for...those things pass or fail by a dozen votes sometimes. That is the only place where your individual vote counts.

|10.19.04 @ 8:41PM|#

Excellent point, phil.

While abstaining in a host of federal races may make sense, it begins to break down when confronted with local issues with stark outcomes in the balance.

For example, here in NC we'll vote on amending the state constitution to do away with a requirement that the public vote on issues of public debt. The change would permit all manner of "economic development" fascism.

So my standing orders would be: DO vote, DON'T vote for candidates who make you vomit, but DO vote against the state and allied interests. Then go get drunk.

I approve this message.

Jesse Walker|10.19.04 @ 10:26PM|#

That said, the old "what a sorry situation" routine some have taken in suggesting that it's either beneath them to select someone (unless a comic character) is singularly a turn-off for me.

I guess we won't be dating, then. But really, Curtis: If my presidential vote made the slightest difference, you might have a point, but since it doesn't I don't see any reason to hold my nose and vote for the lesser evil. Especially when the lesser evil is named John Kerry.

|10.19.04 @ 10:46PM|#

1988 - Dukakis (Liberal reaction to parents)

1992 - Clinton (Still reacting)

1996 - Nader (Hated Clinton)

2000 - Browne (post-Hayek)

2004 - Abstain


Why does the Constitution party oppose statehood for Puerto Rico?

Constitution Party Platform:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php


Looks like the Yankees pitching staff has finally collapsed; I wondered when it was going to happen.

|10.19.04 @ 10:53PM|#

The Constitution Party also appears to be rather hostile to homosexuals:

Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.

...we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.

We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of state sodomy laws in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2.

The latter seems like a rather coy way of stating that they don't oppose state laws which re-criminalize adult consensual homosexual sodomy.

|10.20.04 @ 12:35AM|#

2004-Badnarik
2000-Gore
1996-Clinton
1992-Clinton
1988-Dukakis (keep wanting to write bukkake for some reason...)

Raised in one of those very rare homes where the parents are strict fundamentalist baptists who hated Reagan and most other republicans.

|10.20.04 @ 2:56AM|#

"inspired and progressive platform"...

Yeah, but about as likely to be turned into laws here as the Sharia would be. The fact is, people in this election either a) adore Bush to a rabid fanaticism, b) loathe him and his minions with a rabid fanaticism, or c) don't give a shit one way or another so long as they can watch the E! Newtwork. Exploring new options right now, for most people, is not an option. Badnarik, as good a potential president as he may be, will garner about 1% of the national vote and no EVs. Meanwhile, if Bush is reelected, your money will still be stolen (just like under Kerry) but you also will face the permanence of the PATRIOT Act, "enemy combatant" internment, erosion of the FOIA, erosion of civil liberties at home and a foreign policy dictated by xenophobic militarists.

So, how will voting for a fringe candidate correct that?

|10.20.04 @ 10:21AM|#

Just as some folks assumed that LBJ was a dove compared to Goldwater, is it really that safe to assume that JFK-2 will be more likely to get us out of this mess in the Middle East?

I'm not so certain.

IDL

|10.20.04 @ 10:51AM|#

Most embaressing vote: Carter. I actually thought he would legalize marijuana.

Although I'm going to vote Badnarik, it would be interesting to see how a second Bush term would turn out. Don't you agree, Trainwreck?

|10.20.04 @ 1:35PM|#

cdunlea-
"but you also will face the permanence of the PATRIOT Act"

Kerry has an abysmal voting record on civil liberties including voting for the PATRIOT act. Like I said, don't bother parsing their carbon copy opinions.

"So, how will voting for a fringe candidate correct that?"

I can respect myself. As I see it these are the choices. 1)Vote for shit, get served shit at my own request. 2)Vote for something I want, get served shit by others. The outcome is the same. If you can feel good about voting for one of these retarded apes, knock yourself out. I think we would all be better off if people voted for who they want, rather than who they don't. I spent two hours last week trying to convince a colleague to vote for David Cobb in place of Kerry. I despise his politics but at the very least he would interject some real debate into the campaigns.

David T. Beito|10.20.04 @ 3:42PM|#

Why oh why couldn't the Libertarians have recruited Penn Gillette to run for president? He'd be outpolling Nader by a big margin now if they had. I doubt that the thought even entered their minds.