Media Criticism

Why Are Political Journalists More Scared of Revealing Their Votes Than Baseball Writers?

Transparency is only for the little people, it would seem.

|

Since I have been trying without success for 16 years now to appeal to my fellow journalists' avowed principles while beseeching them to follow Reason's (and Slate's) lead in disclosing which presidential candidate staffers plan to vote for, let me this year try a more mercenary tack: Y'all are leaving some choice traffic on the table.

As of Tuesday morning, our quadrennial survey of staff voting intentions was this week's most popular item on the website. Having journalists publicly live up to their commitment to transparency is apparently a man-bites-dog story.

What's strange about this stubborn transparency-for-thee stance, aside from the fact that many publications are missing those sweet clicks, is that reporters not on the politics beat have long since come around to the virtues of self-disclosure. Sixteen years ago, very few members of the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) revealed ahead of time, let alone publicly defended, their annual votes for the sport's Hall of Fame. By 2014, the percentage of disclosers inched above 50. Last year, it was 84.1.

Along the way, a funny thing happened: Baseball writers started taking their vote more seriously. In fact, the BBWAA in 2017 changed the rules to make all future votes public. "We want transparency from the people we cover," then-BBWAA President Derrick Goold told ESPN at the time. "And now we have a chance to do that ourselves."

Huh.

In fact, political voting preferences are inherently less objective and interesting than arguing over whether Curt Schilling belongs in the Hall (I would vote yeah, FWIW, though not for the bloody sock's crony capitalism). But the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. affects lives more than the inductees to Cooperstown, and knowing how political journalists vote arguably gives consumers more usable media-literacy information than whether some sportswag digs Jeff Kent. Wouldn't it be interesting and potentially helpful to know how many news organizations had 2016 voter preferences similar to Slate's 59-1-1 count for Hillary Clinton, Jill Stein, and Evan McMullin?

But we have a cherished right to a secret ballot, objectors shoot back, and quite right: You can easily respond "none of your business" in your media organization's public survey. But people might use our voting preference against us, they cry. You mean like, weaponizing a single out-of-context data point in an effort to besmirch a perceived malefactor? Toughen up, Francis.

Look, we know newspapers are going to overwhelmingly endorse Joe Biden. When political donations originating from employees of media organizations are eventually tallied up, we know they will tilt massively Democrat. Most people who are cognizant of the profession's recent turn toward "moral clarity" over unattainable objectivity understand that that means those with non-lefty politics will be subjected to harsher adjectives.

And yet the very same media commentators who have long decried the so-called "view from nowhere" are absent in this battle for more journalistic transparency.

"Journalists can also be clear about where we're coming from, and where we're not," New York Times media columnist Ben Smith wrote last month. "But journalism also has its own weird ideology that doesn't match up with a party or movement. That you, the public, should know, rather than not know. That sunlight is the best disinfectant. That secrets are bad. That power deserves challenge, including the power of figures most of our respective audiences admire."

All right, then, Big Media Ben. If secrets are bad, power deserves challenge, and sunlight is the best disinfectant, then let's see you and your institution test out that whole "weird ideology that doesn't match up with a party or movement" claim by putting the Gray Lady's money where its mouth is: Show us your votes!

NEXT: The USDA Should Let People Plant Blight-Resistant American Chestnut Trees

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Baseball writers are pretentious twats who think their opinion outside of sports matters to actual humans.

    1. My radio alarm is set to a time and station that plays sports news when it goes off. I don’t really listen to it, it’s just better than the shrieking alarm button.

      But it started to down on me listening to these guys. Sports talks is all just stream of consciousness drivel, isn’t it? If they’re not actively calling a game, they’re still actively talking, but with nothing to talk about, so it’s just random firings in the language cortex. Dear gawd, they were talking about a player’s gramma’s peach cobbler recipe the other day!

      1. Grand Theft Auto has a sports radio station, it’s hilarious how realistic it sounds, with only a few minutes of audio.

        1. I have received $17634 last month from home by working online in my part time. I am a full time student and doing this easy home based work for 3 to 4 hrs a day. vbv.This job is very simple to do and its regular earnings are much better than any other office type work.

          See detail here…………Money90

          1. I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned easily $15k from this without having online working skills. Heres what I’ve been doing.

            open this web Click here

            1. ●▬▬▬▬PART TIME JOBS FOR US RESIDENTS▬▬▬▬▬●
              Makes $140 to $180 per day online work and i received $16994 in one month online acting from home. I am a daily student and work simply one to a pair of hours in my spare time. Everybody will do that job and online makes extra cash by simply You can check more.

              open this web……↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓ ­­⇛­⇛­⇛­⇛­⇛­►Click here

    2. And baseball writers don’t get canceled.
      Unlike journalists who dare disclose they vote for a Republican.
      Who am I kidding, the second thing never happens, but if they revealed they were all Democrats, people might start to question their objectivity.

      1. ●▬▬▬▬PART TIME JOBS FOR US RESIDENTS▬▬▬▬▬●
        Makes $140 to $180 per day online work and i received $16984 in one month online acting from home. I am a daily student and work simply one to a pair of hours in my spare time. Everybody will do that job and online makes extra cash by simply You can check more.

        open this web……↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓ ­­⇛­⇛­⇛­⇛­⇛­►Click here

    3. So…no difference from political journalists then?

    4. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make Abt me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…CMs after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…>>Visit Here

    5. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make Aby me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…CMs after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…>>Visit Here

    6. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this Azx month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions……….Click here

  2. If journalists disclose their voting preferences, then the general public might start to question the neutrality of our stalwart heroes of objectivity in the media.

    1. Leftists know their positions, beliefs, and policy preferences aren’t popular and can’t win on their own merit.
      Thus leftists pretend to “neutrality” to lend their perspective artificial credibility.
      You see it the comments here constantly.
      It’s all an attempt to fool audiences into accepting the scam.

  3. Baseball writers are literally the worst humans of all.

    1. Yes, they are. These are the people who for 70 years decided that no one can ever be unanimously voted into the Hall of Fame.

      1. it’s the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Who Tim Cowlishaw Likes.

        1. It takes a special breed of ignorant dumb ass to decide you are not voting for someone like Steve Carlton because he was mean to you one time. God I fucking hate baseball writers. Scum of the earth all of them.

          1. Steve Carlton was very nice to me the couple times I met him as a kid I never understood why the writers hated him so much. Now I know they’re just assholes who couldn’t play ball themselves.

            1. He loved fans but had no tolerance for idiots. So of course the media hated him.

              1. Remember reading somewhere that Carlton moved to Durango, CO and was a self-described Randian libertarian. Yes, why guys like Tom Sever and Mike Schmidt weren’t unanimous choices for HOF is hard to imagine.

                1. Schmidt got mustard on my autograph ball

                  1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…EWs after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

                    Here’s what I do…>> Click here

                2. You know, as a child, I met a number of Phillies who lived in the same apartment complex (this was the very early 70’s) in Edgewater Park, NJ: Mike Schmidt, Greg Luzinski, and Larry Bowa. They were all very nice to the kids in the complex.

                  My big kiddie highlight: I signed Larry Bowa’s cast when he busted his ankle.

              2. Probably because he was a rare pro athlete who understood that the fans were the ones paying his salary.

          2. as compared to football writers, who kept Terrell Owens (arguably the second best wide receiver of all time) out of the Hall of Fame for a few years because they didn’t like him. Then got offended when he decided not to show when they finally voted him in.

            1. TO is top 5, but Randy Moss is clearly second best ever.
              TO and Larry Fitzgerald are neck and neck for third.

              1. Obviously Raymond Berry is number 1 though.

              2. Nope.

                It’s Larry.

                2nd in receptions.
                2nd in receiving yards
                6th in TDs
                11 pro bowls
                3 time all conference

                All with a plethora of terrible QBs throwing to him: Stanton, Max Hall, Skelton, Leinart, Rosen, Derek Anderson…

                1. Steve Largent was setting NFL records with Jim Zorn, Dave Krieg, and Kelly Stouffer throwing to him, and he did it in an era when the DBs were allowed to be a lot more physical than they are now, despite him not being that big even for a WR of his era.

                  Fitzgerald is clearly the best of this generation of receivers, I do consider him Top 5 because of that, but at least he had Kurt Warner and Carson Palmer for a few seasons.

                  1. Largent should never be forgotten. pre-Jerry Rice Jerry Rice.

            2. Larry Fitzgerald is staring you down right now.

          3. It’s not just baseball writers–rumor has it that Ken Stabler was kept out of the NFL Hall of Fame because he supposedly had an affair with the wife of SI’s Paul Zimmerman. Regardless of the rumor, Zim definitely hated Stabler’s guts, and he had enough influence with the selection committee that he was able to block Stabler’s entry into the Hall for years. Stabler was able to get in on a Veteran ballot 8 years after Zim had multiple strokes that left him unable to talk and barely move.

            1. >>had an affair with the wife of SI’s Paul Zimmerman

              she’s better off for it. loved Stabler he’s one of the heroes you *did* want to meet.

      2. yeah, like some players are good enough to be in the Hall of Fame, but not on the first ballot. but they didn’t play any more between the first ballot and the second ballot.

          1. Mattingly. Bobby AND Barry Bonds … Simba … Jack Morris

            1. The list of better pitchers than Morris to never get the call is longer than the Great Wall. He’s the exemplar for the Hall of Very Good.

              1. okay sure … but Morris gets in on 1991 Game 7 alone

            2. Jack Morris was a first ballot selection for the Asshole Hall of Fame. Shows up to the All-Star festivities in Detroit and then gets irritated when fans ask for a picture, then pauses for not even half a second before walking away. Got a really nice pic of his profile as he’s walking in front of my cousin though.

              1. that’s a great terrible story. sorry man.

        1. Well not everyone can be Cal Ripken Jr.

    2. ctvryyrhebytvyc4vyrtyctexctevr rhedfvy5 tubvytjf65 65yujvrty vb5tey

  4. I Start Business Online with USA Countries.PleaseRead More.

  5. “If voting mattered they wouldn’t let us do it.” – George Carlin

    1. Coming to an election near you – – – – – – – –

  6. Great article, Matt. However, I find it quite easy to know how political journos vote. It’s a one, sometimes two step process.

    1. Read their coverage.
    2. Check their twitter feed.

    #2 is what you do if you can’t quite get a feel from their coverage.

    1. Does not always hold true. In a world with ONLY two political choices, then yeah one could guess somewhat accurately. But we have more than two choices. We have none of the above, I didn’t bother, I wrote in Paul Paulsen contingent. Which is steadily moving towards 33% of registered voters. It’s the fastest growing voting bloc. And of course there are third parties.

      Looking at just Reason’s voting pattern article. We got like, what, three people who even bothered to vote for one or the other mainstream candidate? Why the hell does the commentariat here think theyr’e all Biden worshipers? Fucking nuts.

      I won’t tell you how I voted, but I will say I paused for a second when I saw Kanye’s name on the ballot. I didn’t even know he made it onto the ballot. Would it really have upset the balance of the universe to lodge a protest vote for Kanye? I didn’t though, but who cares if I did? I also thought about writing in Tulsi Gabbard, but that would have invalidated my ballot as she was not a qualified writeiin candidate. I might also have left that section blank. I won’t tell you.

      But I did vote for a personal friend of mine who ran for the local water district. But not for another personal friend of mine who running for congress, because I wasn’t in his district. He doesn’t have a chance though.

      1. Why the hell does the commentariat here think theyr’e all Biden worshipers? Fucking nuts.

        Well, now we know they’re not so it has some value, I think.

      2. We got like, what, three people who even bothered to vote for one or the other mainstream candidate? Why the hell does the commentariat here think theyr’e all Biden worshipers? Fucking nuts.

        We got 6 who admitted they are 100% voting for Biden, 4 who said they’re leaning that way but won’t participate, 1 who admitted they are 100% voting for Trump, and the remainder who profess to be voting for Jo Jorgensen.

        And the commentariat thinks they are Biden worshipers because revealed preference is always more accurate than stated preference. When half of the staff’s STATED preference is Biden, and the other half writes articles exclusively in praise of Biden and/or exclusively in derision of his opponent, their actual allegiances are clear.

        1. Libertarians can be left or right leaning, as the Reason comment board shows. But Reason writers are nearly 100% left leaning, as the voting article shows.

          1. But Reason writers are nearly 100% left leaning, as the voting article shows.

            ^ This. KMW hasn’t been at all shy about announcing having given up on the Republican-Libertarian alliance and courting a Democrat-Libertarian alliance. I think it’s just about as naïve, but there you have it.

        2. Don’t forget that some of those Jorgensen voters said they would vote Biden if the race was close in their state.

      3. I won’t tell you how I voted

        You don’t need to. As I explained, revealed preference is self-confession.

      4. We don’t think they’re BidenHarris worshippers/fans, we think they’re leftists who will go along with the crowd.

      5. FWIW: I don’t believe they are Biden worshipers. I believe they are mostly leftist sympathizers. And if you look at the article, you see that the majority have tended to vote for leftists in the past and are leaning towards Biden. The majority are happy to criticize republicans and “Both Sides” the Democrats.

        And by the way, the lone Trump supporter was Robert Poole- who has NEVER appeared in these surveys before, despite being a Co-Founder of the Reason Foundation. He rarely posts to the site, and the only reason he is in that survey is as a token Trump supporter.

        1. They used Bob instead of Robert in the 2016 survey; maybe why you missed:

          Bob Poole
          Bob Poole is founder, trustee, and director of transportation policy at Reason Foundation and a former editor of reason.

          Who are you voting for? I have agonized for months over which horrible major candidate would be worse for our liberties, at several points being tempted to hold my nose and vote for Trump—mostly because of upcoming Supreme Court vacancies. But as I write, that seems like avoiding a hanging by opting for drowning. So my likely decision will be to proudly vote “Hell, no” to them both, by going for Johnson and Weld-by far the most qualified and most pro-liberty choice. If 20 percent of the voters did that, whoever wins could hardly claim a mandate for his or her terrible policies.

          Which major-party candidate do you find most alarming? Trump is clearly unqualified, as well as having vicious anti-liberty and anti-market ideas. Clinton is an ardent statist, even more committed than Trump to expanding government control and appointing anti-constitutionalists to the Supreme Court. So it’s really hard to say which combination is worse.

          Who did you vote for in 2012? In 2012 I reluctantly voted Republican, as the lesser evil.

          1. Fair enough. Again, token Right-Libertarian.

            The fact that he is the only right-libertarian, and has written exactly 0 articles for Reason this year may explain why there is a bit of distance between the authors and the commentariate.

      6. “We got like, what, three people who even bothered to vote for one or the other mainstream candidate?”

        Counting is hard.

      7. Why the hell does the commentariat here think theyr’e all Biden worshipers?

        Hi Mr. Strawman, how are you today?

        The argument is that they are heavily democratic/left leaning. Which the article proved. As there were Mondale, Carter, Obama, Clinton voters. There were literally 2 people who mentioned even once considering voting for a conservative.

        Libertarians range from left to right. This site is so biased to the left that it tends to tilt into DNC territory because there is no counter to their group think.

        I truly am sorry you’re too simple minded to understand this, even though it was fully talked about in the commentary thread yesterday.

      8. One could argue that so many are voting Jo, as opposed to Biden, because they largely live in states where one can “afford” to lodge a moral vote.

        If you live in CA or NY or KY or AL, you know exactly which way your state is going to fall. It’s a preordained reality, so voting your conscience is safe.

        Put every one of those who said Jo in a battleground state, and I’d bet money most of them would vote Biden in a heartbeat.

        1. Boehm said he would vote Biden if it mattered. Welch said he would consider voting for Biden.

  7. Why would I care what other people’s votes or opinions are?

    1. repeated online commentary at opinion page is evidence of habit.

    2. Well, because not everyone lives in an insular world where they act as an inert blob of carbon floating through the vacuum of space, occasionally bumping into other inert blobs of carbon.

      One can sometimes not care about the opinions of the vast majority of people, but you may, on occasion, run across someone for whom their opinion matters for a variety of reasons- reasons which might be personal to you and you alone.

    3. I sure don’t. In fact, there are a lot of people I wish I did NOT know how they voted, because I know think less of them. In a culture where there are only two political choices, why am I required to hate half the people? Why is it so important to know how people voted so we can assign them to hate categories?

      1. >> I wish I did NOT know how they voted, because I know think less of them.

        that’s sad dude.

        1. LOL. It really really is. He’s too partisan to know why though.

      2. In my town, you just put up virtue signaling yard signs.

        fun fact, I’m seeing more Biden signs than I saw Hillary signs. Either people are really, really excited by Biden, or they’re scared shitless of another four years of Orange Man.

        1. Might have to do with the roving bands of terrorist blmantifa zombies that have been given free rein* in your city as well.
          You live in occupied Seattle, right?

          *is it “free rein” as in “unguided slack on a horse’s reins” or “free reign” as in “unchecked dominion”? Never thought about this one before…

          1. I live in a quiet, unhip, off-the-beaten path neighborhood in Seattle. Which is why I’m a little taken aback at how hard the virtue signaling is in my neighborhood. One block east of me where I walk my dog, I call it Virtue Signal Avenue. Literally every third house has some kind of “Science is real/love is love/black lives matter” yard sign. I’m not joking. Some houses have multiple. And they had them before BLM started burning everything down. I don’t think it’s a defense mechanism, I think it’s just part of our modern culture.

            Speak loudly and carry a tiny stick.

            1. Literally every third house has some kind of “Science is real/love is love/black lives matter” yard sign.

              “In this house we believe . . . “

              1. I wonder if they also thought the 10Million Ukrainians killed by Stalin is a myth?

            2. “Science is real”…I actually know two of my neighbors who have that stupid sign…both are liberal art majors….I once asked them what it meant and got…”evolution and climate change”..I asked not Newtonian Mechanics, Electricity and Magnetism, Quantum Mechanics…you know what “science” is based on…they had no idea what I was talking about..they just thought science was anyone who supported “evolution” and “climate change.” Nothing more dangerous than liberal art majors…

              idiots….

        2. quite the opposite here. I’ve seen one Biden sign all year. Hillary signs were everywhere 4 years ago.

          1. Yeah – my area, too. A few more Biden/Harris signs have appeared in my neighborhood over the last week, even my neighbor who only took her Bernie sign down last month, but 2016 was “I’m With Her” almost everywhere you looked.

            And I do think it’s driven more by fear than love. The things people on the left believe are happening in the world right now are quite frightening.

            1. “The things people on the left believe are happening in the world right now are quite frightening.”

              A neighbor has a sign up “Vote him out before he kills us all”

            2. I am seeing more Biden signs now. There were none…now there are many more.

          2. I’ve seen a few Biden window stickers and the occasional yard sign. Hardly any Trump stuff, although the ones who are voting for him are as noisy about it as he is–I’m talking giant-ass flags flying out the windows and stickers all over their damn car. I guess they’re counting on their boldness keeping them from being too much of a target, because people will think they’re packing heat or something.

            1. Basically, this sort of squares with my observation that Biden voters aren’t all that excited to vote for him, while Trump voters are salivating to do so for the Orange Man, which is probably why he’s been trying to pump up registered Republican turnout.

          3. I’m not seeing many signs at all. It’s both weird and refreshing.

        3. Here in Pittsburgh, Democrat committee members and activists have been knocking on doors of registered Democrats, and asking if they can place a Biden/Harris sign in the person’s front yard.

          Although Biden will win Pittsburgh, I see very little enthusiasm for Biden/Harris among Democrats. I’ll be enthusiastically voting for Trump.

      3. there are a lot of people I wish I did NOT know how they voted, because I know think less of them

        So you don’t care how they voted so much that you think less of them based on how they voted? Do you ever actually think about the retarded shit you say? Holy fucking shit dude.

      4. “why am I required to hate half the people?”

        You’re not.

    4. Wow, you’re almost as horrible as Trump. SMH

  8. If they reveal their votes, the gig is up, because they won’t be able to hide their liberal bias anymore.

    You say, “Look, we know newspapers are going to overwhelmingly endorse Joe Biden. When political donations originating from employees of media organizations are eventually tallied up, we know they will tilt massively Democrat.”

    If you can find a single NYT, WAPO, etc writer who’ll vote Trump, I’d be more surprised than if aliens knocked in my door in the next 1/2 hour, and journalists simply can’t let it be known that they’re 100% in the tank for Biden (and H in 16), or else their veneer of being something other than Pravda goes down the drain.

    1. If they reveal their votes, the gig is up, because they won’t be able to hide their liberal bias anymore.

      Disagree. Their liberal bias is apparent in their coverage… and often on naked display on their twitter feed.

      1. Sure. But the average person doesn’t read to find that bias, and most sane people stay the fuck away from Twitter.

        Most people are like my mom. She gets her news from the MSM, never questions any of it, and wouldn’t know Twitter from a hole in the ground.

  9. Why does anyone even care how someone else voted? How bizarre is that? It’s like we want to deliberate divide people up into fateful tribes.

    The problem isn’t that the NYT staff won’t reveal their votes, it’s that the NYT staff doesn’t even pretend to engage in objectivity anymore. Objective journalism doesn’t need vote transparency.

    1. Your right. I couldn’t care less how they vote. I care about how they think, or in most cases fail to think.

    2. Why does anyone even care how someone else voted? How bizarre is that? It’s like we want to deliberate divide people up into fateful tribes.

      Just a quick reminder that this is the exact same retarded cunt who just said 3 minutes after this post that his esteem for his friends changed when he found out how they voted.

      Seriously guy. I know you’re unbelievably stupid, but really?

  10. I would point out that my first real taste of what came to be cancel culture came by way of sports journalists–the first being Jimmy the Greek being fired in 1988 after his awful comments and then when the Sports Writers cancelled Pete Rose.

    Jimmy the Greek being fired was entirley understandable, but cancelling Pete Rose from the Hall of Fame is like the cancel culture version of original sin. When it became clear that they could cancel Charlie Hustle–despite his achievements–it became clear that cancel culture enthusiasts could take down anybody.

    1. >>cancelling Pete Rose

      Mom Nature’s opinion of A. Bartlett Giamatti was quickly made clear

    2. Pete Rose got what he deserved. The problem is they let people do worse first with steroids and then with sign stealing that all make Pete not seem as bad in retrospect as he actually was.

      1. Yeah, betting on games that he didn’t fix. The fucking horror.

        I love that unrestricted underage transgender ass sex in the public library is considered a sacred and unalienable right by libertarians, but betting can still make you blush.

        1. As I recall, Rose never bet against the Reds when he managed them. However, even betting on Reds to win would be problematic.
          For example, he could juggle his pitching rotation, make pinch hitter decisions, play stars who were hurt, etc. all to try to ensure a Reds win in a particular game the consequences of which might be felt to the Reds detriment in future games.

        2. He bet on himself. And that is a big no no for the reasons Creech lists. Moreover, he knew the rules and was such a degenerate he did it anyway. So, it is hard to have much sympathy for him.

          1. Pete Rose shouldn’t be inducted because of what he did as a manager or for what he did or didn’t do off the field.

            Pete Rose should be inducted as a player–for what he did on the field. He wouldn’t be the only player inducted into the HoF after being caught breaking the rules.

            1. something… something… “purity of the game” is the reason I have heard.
              I think he should be in the HoF also.

          2. If ty Cobb got in then Joe Jackson and Pete rose should be in. Betting on your own team to win every game is arrogant, but it shouldn’t be illegal. Oh no he might try to manage them in order to win, also known as his job.

            1. Just because Ty Cobb was a racist dick doesn’t mean that Rose and Jackson should automatically be admitted, though. I don’t necessarily agree with keeping Rose out based on his playing career, but I understand the reasoning behind it.

              Jackson’s case is REALLY murky and was made more so by that stupid Field of Dreams (aka, Field of Boomer Daddy Issues) movie, which was just a propaganda piece for guys who deliberately threw the World Series.

      2. If the purpose of the Hall of Fame is to recognize the greatest players who ever played the game, then Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame.

        If the purpose of the Hall of Fame is for elitist sports writers to inflict their elitist opinions on baseball fans, then I don’t give a shit about the Hall of Fame.

        And that bit about the elitists inflicting themselves on the rest of America by excluding people with their condemnations and denunciations that have little or nothing to do with the reason the person in question is loved, then that sounds an awful lot like what the SJWs are doing with cancel culture.

        O.J. Simpson was one of the best running backs to ever play in the NFL–no matter what anybody else says about him, and Roseanne was hilarious and loved by millions–regardless of whatever awful things she said. It’s all the same thing.

        I want meritocracy.

        1. Put him in with no fanfare – don’t invite him to a ceremony, don’t give him any benefits, just say he was one of the best so he’s being included.

        2. I doubt OJ would have been elected to the Hall of Fame if he had killed Nicole and Ron Goldman in 1984 instead of 1994.

    3. I went to those Big Red Machine games and got to meet most of the players. My dad was a big fan and has season tickets.

      What a collection of talent. Just saw that Joe Morgan died. When I met him he was the nicest guy. He was a great hitter and base stealer. It was so exciting to watch him when he got on base because you knew he was going to go for it.

      Rose, Bench, Morgan, Conception, Geronimo…

    4. Rose wasn’t canceled for making politically incorrect statements (like Curt Schilling on ESPN was). He was canceled for breaking baseball’s written rules against gambling.

      That said, a Hall of Fame without Pete Rose and Barry Bonds is no Hall of Fame at all.

      1. Graig Nettles may be the best third basemen in history, and he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame–regardless of whether he was busted once with a corked bat.

        George Brett is in the Hall of Fame despite the pine tar incident.

        1. Agreed.

          But a corked bat is a sign of intentional cheating. Pine tar going too high on the bat is happenstance.

          1. superballs everywhere! lol

            Nettles could never have taken Goose top-shelf like Brett did. slick glove though.

    5. “Jimmy the Greek being fired was entirley understandable”

      But Jimmy the Greek was correct when pointing out that many slaveholders bred their slaves for strength, agility and endurance for working in cotton and tobacco fields, which is why blacks have accounted for many of the best athletes.

      For pointing out that fact, Jimmy was accused of being a racist, and his career was destroyed. He was the first person who was cancelled out by the cancel culture that has promoted identity politics.

    6. Rose was cancelled from the HoF because he DID commit the cardinal sin in baseball.

      Although I agree he should be in the hall on the merits of his play, to pretend gambling on games isn’t the biggest offense one can commit in baseball since the Black Sox is to not recognize baseball history.

    7. Rose gambled on baseball while being an active player/manager. The baseball commissioner position was created specifically to prevent even the appearance of gambling interests having influence over players and managers after the Black Sox scandal. Gambling on baseball is the mortal sin for someone who wears a MLB uniform.

      Rose was, at best, an idiot.

  11. While I appreciate Reason’s transparency on how many of their staff and contributors plan to vote, I don’t think that any private citizen should feel coerced or compelled to reveal this information, no matter what their day job is.

    1. Came here to say this. The sanctity of the voting booth was strongly stressed to me when I was young. Even back then, we knew pressuring people to talk about their votes puts pressure on them to try to decide what answer the questioner would like to hear. Once they’re socially rewarded for choosing the correct candidate, that’s who they’re likely to ACTUALLY vote for.

      We want to at least pretend the choice of our next leader isn’t a high-school popularity contest, though it strains our limits of incredulity.

      1. Came here to say this. The sanctity of the voting booth was strongly stressed to me when I was young.

        Discussing politics in general was considered bad form. Now, Silence is Violence, and if you’re not blaring your political innermost on twitter and instagram, you’re doing it with a stupid assed yard sign.

        1. if you’re not blaring your political innermost on twitter and instagram, you’re doing it with a stupid assed yard sign.

          In my neighborhood, the ratio of those to Biden/Harris signs is about 4:1.

        2. This.

          I welcome the day when discussing politics and religion in public is all but verboten.

          And what’s worse is that schools are encouraging it earlier and earlier. Middle schoolers talking about politics is fucked.

      2. Dave Chapelle had a great bit about how that is a ‘white people’ thing.

        Here it is.

        https://youtu.be/_ZHrSK0l3dY

        1. It is the whitest of white people things.

          1. Yup, black people do not do this.

    2. and the way things are now, revealing the wrong opinion may be a security concern

    3. Which is why stating that all secrets are bad is worrisome. That is a direct attack on the notion of personal privacy.

  12. *As of Tuesday morning

    I really love the site, but I’d love to make it through one online article without obvious errors, usually in the first two grafs—and sometimes, like today, in the first two sentences.

    Seriously, though. Tighten your shit up.

    1. It’s ironic that everyone from the interns to the general manager is an “editor” and nobody actually performs any of the job duties associated with an editor.

    2. For some reason it doesn’t bother me.

      I suppose in these days of texting from our cell phone, voice recognition which I use for work and all of those things there is no point in being pedantic about it.

      Resurch shows dot u cn understood a sentance even if TE are many tiptoe errors.

      1. Yeah, I mean, it’s great when my girlfriend texts me the grocery list. If she types “califlower” I’m still coming home with the correct item. If she says “luv u,” I easily understand that my changes of getting laid are good. But if she were making a sweeping point not just about print media at large but aimed directly at it, maybe a proofreader or copy editor could jump in as necessary.

        If you’re hoping to win over a readership with a carefully considered piece on journalist ethics, well, obvious errors undercut the “careful” part of it, and that careful quality was what separated this from flat conjecture or lame posturing.

        I think Matt Welch has a good point, and I don’t think it’s one he hasn’t thoroughly considered. Hell, as a libertarian and longtime reader of Reason and subscriber to its podcasts, I agree with him. But for someone who is not necessarily similarly inclined, which is whom this piece would most obviously be geared toward, obvious errors can lead to his point being easily dismissed. And the errors could be for any number of reasons, several ranging beyond the writer’s control and ranging from sometimes articles get pushed back or moved forward, down to it’s month seven of lockdown in some places and time has lost all meaning, but that doesn’t necessarily change much either. A reason is not an excuse is not a free pass. And it doesn’t even begin to touch on why—in my own anecdotal, non-scientific, off-the-cuff sense—every article has some obvious problem.

        Not trying to be a hater or a troll. I like this site a lot and often link to articles here in an effort to sway the thoughts of differently minded friends and colleagues. Typos and obvious errors only make that harder.

        1. This.

          To believe good form is dead because bad form can be understood is just lazy thinking.

        2. My own obvious typos are a different story, naturally. *face palm*

    3. >>staff voting intentions was this week’s most popular item on the website

      invited a barrage of pies in the face and cheered the traffic lol

  13. Why Are Political Journalists More Scared of Revealing Their Votes Than Baseball Writers?

    Maybe because fake libertarians want them dead if they sit to the right of center?

    https://twitter.com/MattWelch/status/1102654202545913857

    1. The gall of Welch here amazes me.

      1. Yeah, that’s fucking garish.

        “We need to ambush and kill all conservative writers.”

        “Why won’t writers reveal their political preferences?”

        Gee, I fucking wonder….

    2. Yeah, Welch literally wants to kill people for their political beliefs. That was absolutely not a joke.

      1. He doubled down:

        @MattWelch
        Now would be a good time to throw a big cocktail party in New York or Washington, and invite every single conservative writer you know. #RedWedding2

        @daREALMRSEATTLE
        Pro trump or anti trump or both types?

        @MattWelch
        Oh, you need both.

      2. I heard Matt Welch “joke” one time that a judge should be fed into a woodchipper. Truly despicable.

  14. First, the basic premise of our secret ballot is that NO ONE should be able to force you to publicize your vote.

    Second, the reason for this is that people, and especially political journalists, can lose their job or even be physically harmed by voting for the “wrong” candidate. By normalizing the publication of votes, you either enable this external power to be used against people or normalize lying to the public. BOTH of which are problems.

  15. Journalists think everyone cares about them as much as they do. News at 11

  16. so basically the reporters of this media outlet are overwhelmingly democratic? And the large number of you so called journalists who don’t vote yet continue to complain………….

  17. That 2016 Slate list is something else.

  18. Good one, young man. There are few of us journalists who are so wise. In 2003, when I was given a weekly op-ed column at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, here is what I wrote:

    Laying my cards on the table

    Someday I’ll write “Confessions of a Subjective Journalist.”

    I promise it will be the mostly true story of how I overcame years of ideological discrimination and rose to fame and power in the mostly liberal world of newspaper journalism. Watch for it a few years from now on C-SPAN 7.

    Until then, I’d like to do something that all print and electronic journalists probably should be forced to do by their editors – explain where I’m coming from and what my political biases are.

    If this sounds perfectly sensible to you, it’s because you don’t work in journalism. You see, journalists like to pretend that, unlike lower human life forms, they are not helpless victims of their own emotions and subjectivity. They are neutral observers of reality.

    Thanks to their professional training and experience, they believe they can cover complex, politically charged issues they care deeply about or have a vested economic interest in without letting their own opinions and passions influence the slant or balance of their writing.

    This is pure bunk, as every amateur news junkie who understands the difference between CNN and Fox News knows. It is impossible for journalists to be “objective.” Fair and balanced is the best humans can hope for.

    This eternal struggle between objectivity and subjectivity hurts journalism. That’s why — God save us — if I ran a daily newspaper, I’d insist that every news article end with a paragraph stating the author’s known ideological prejudices and genetic idiosyncrasies.

    Imagine how something like this would help readers and bring credibility to a newspaper.

    Smith-Jones is a lapsed Irish Catholic from a working-class Democrat family with a masters in victimology from Ohio U. She loathes businessmen, thinks income tax rates are too low and believes everyone should be forced to use public transit, go to public schools and join a labor union.

    OK, I hyperbolize. I’m not being objective or fair or balanced. Not every one of the several hundred writers and editors I’ve met in 30 years of small, medium and big-time newspaper journalism was a government-hugging, tax-loving, gun-hating liberal. A few were recovering socialists. Several were openly practicing Republicans.

    I don’t know what the politics of my route manager were when I delivered the Pittsburgh Press as a boy. But until I arrived at the Trib in the summer of 2000, I had worked with only one libertarian journalist in my career, Paul Ciotti, an excellent L.A. Times feature writer from Greensburg, Pa.

    I don’t know how Ciotti turned into a libertarian. But I’m sure I became one in part because I was the product of a politically mixed marriage. Mom was a Democrat. Dad was a Republican and a charter subscriber to National Review.

    In our home FDR was not just liberal saint, he was also liberal devil. JFK and Nixon were equals. I admit I favored JFK in 1960, for religious reasons, but in 1964 I found Barry Goldwater and Milton Friedman.

    By 1976, having discovered Bastiat and Hayek and other one-name giants of human liberty, I was cruising down the road to libertarian land. It’s way too late to turn back now, and I don’t want to. I just wish a few of my fellow journalists had been traveling with me.

    Bill Steigerwald is a lapsed Catholic who believes peaceful individuals, markets and society should be as free as possible and governments should be so small, poor and weak that no one interested in money or power would want to enter politics. He’s against the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty and the War on Iraq. And he tries to stay out of bars and government buildings as much as he can.

  19. When I saw who Reason writers were voting for and more importantly why I lost all respect for Reason. Especially the moron who said “Trump was the greatest threat to liberty” the country has ever faced. Reason journalists are just like NYT and WAPO journalists. You have no independent thoughts, you merely regurgitate pre-digested talking points and hew to established narratives. I could respect doing this out of necessity to meet deadlines but it appears to be due to limited reasoning capacity.

  20. Easy. From reading the newspaper op-eds and most of what is online, the situation is that there are very few, or no journalists any more. It is all just hate mongers insulting the president and the 64 million actual CITIZENS who elected him. And their totally totally, obnoxious parroting of each others’ hate lines tells us exactly how they would vote.

  21. “Moral clarity” here means “lying one’s ass off for partisan advantage.” Criticizing the “view from nowhere” was a stalking horse for calling the ideal of objectivity into question. The claim that striving for objectivity is a hollow, unattainable goal (and also now “white supremacist”) was always just about the problem of being held to objective standards making it difficult to lie one’s ass off. Fuzzy notions of “moral clarity” make that super easy.

  22. Pete Rose. Charlie Hustle. All time NL first-team starter.

Please to post comments