It isn’t that unusual for reporters to leave journalism behind and go into politics, working for candidates or public officials or, in some cases, running for office themselves.
But this is typically a one-way street, especially for those who seek office. Making the move in reverse is unusual, especially given the “objectivity” of the corporate media.
So I was quite surprised to see Ramsay Wharton back on the air for Hawaii News Now.
Wharton ran for the 2nd Congressional District seat as a conservative Republican.
“I’m running for Congress because our current Representative has shown little or no leadership on the key issues upon which our voters have made clear they want our Washington Representatives to focus: job creation, restraint in spending and lower taxes,” said Wharton.
“I have reached out and listened to the people of Hawai`i and what I have heard back is that they have suffered for too long under de facto one party rule losing hope for a prosperous future. This election year, Hawai`i has a golden opportunity to elect a new generation of thoughtful, fiscally conservative minded leaders like myself and Charles Djou.”
According to the FEC, Wharton raised only $29,516 in her primary run, so perhaps the money ties that go with campaigning aren’t as much as a factor in her case.
Should mainstream media be a revolving door? Can you successfully put the political genie back into the bottle? I would be interested in your thoughts.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Those of us who have been in and out of media and political positions would probably agree: A lot depends on the individual – and being able to maintain perspective and integrity in both roles. I suspect that media people who decide to run for office (as opposed to working for a politician) might have a tougher time re-establishing credibility returning to a media job. Consider not only the individual’s necessary discipline in returning from politics to media, but also the factors an EMPLOYER must consider in hiring such a person. Lots of trust on the line.
Some people, regardless of their political stance, are capable of staying open-minded when it matters. Some people live in their own little world without a set of eyes or ears, and just about everyone else is somewhere in betwixt.
Conclusion: Jim is right; there is an awful lot of trust on the line. And even if the reporter does a solid job, stories that draw political lines will raise questions and allegations.
Journalists aspire to the unattainable. That is to report the news without bias. Unvarnished truth is a noble concept, but those who think they have actually achieved it, as an individual or as a profession, are deceiving themselves.
With very, very few exceptions, news products, both nationally and locally, are tainted with the reporter’s limits of perspective and their own political bias.
To profess that someone exposed to politics as a candidate would somehow taint the profession by returning to it later is an outrageous conceit.
Journalism is a job not a religion. And, It’s pretty obvious what side various reporters are on in any given issue or candidacy.
Yet, the pretense of sustaining this unobtainable standard of neutral reporting is how “news’ purveyors maintain that their words are “more trustworthy” than those of ordinary citizens…and, therefore worthy of an audience and commercial support.
Religions use this same ploy to manipulate their followers (we know what the truth is and will sell it to you). Journalists haven’t yet claimed the infallible word of the Almighty, but it might just be a matter of time.
It’s simply part of a repeating story throughout human history. Some people just get off on telling other people what they should think, and they want to make it a very small club.
Personally, I find the Daily Show the only honest outlet on television.
I think the days of “trusting” a newscaster are long gone for most of us. The industry has devolved to a point where it is hard to take them seriously as “journalists” at all. Instead, they are judged as on-air “personalities.”
And they change so frequently, I find it hard to care about any of them. Some are smoother, some are friendlier, some are cuter, some are too damn young. At least we don’t have billboards with the faces of these folks assaulting us as we drive to and from work.
(I have more respect for some of the field reporters, however.)
I guess I miss Walter Cronkite.
Personally, I wouldn’t trust a newsperson who ran for office as a conservative. Rush Limbaugh always taught me the mainstream media are liberal.
It was a joke, for chrissakes. A jab at Limbaugh’s mantra. Ok, maybe not a great joke…
Well, that’s your first mistake. The mainstream media is …mainstream, i.e. seeks to preserve the status quo.
No matter who it is, I think it’s near impossible to appear objective after running for office. Can Wharton cover, say, the Democratic Party Convention without raising eyebrows?
This is why many journalists take pains to be “neutral” to the point of not joining organizations or being active in politics.
Then again, if Wharton were to work for Fox News, no biggie, eh? 🙂
Kolea is right. The days of trusting a newscaster are long gone. Still, it will be difficult to see Ms. Wharton on-camera without wondering about bias on any story that touches issues having a conservative vs. liberal bent. Maybe not fair, but that was part of her crap shoot in running for office as a voice against the entrenched Democrats.
Ian, I question your assertion that Wharton is a “conservative” Republican. The real conservative in the Republican primary for the Second Congressional District was John Willoughby, who actually won the primary. What’s my evidence that Willoughby was the real conservative? He got an endorsement from Sarah Palin and the tea party activists. Willoughby is a highly-decorated retired Navy officer, with a strongly conservative campaign platform. What were Wharton’s conservative credentials or positions? Willoughby came out strongly in opposition to the Akaka bill for all the right reasons. I was never able to discover Wharton’s position on the Akaka bill — I suspect she was evading that topic in the same way that Djou tried to evade it (but Djou was eventually “outed” as being a supporter of the bill). I think the situation between Wharton vs. Willoughby in the primary was similar to Lingle vs. John Carroll in their primary 8 years ago. Lingle was certainly not a conservative; Carroll was. Just because someone is not as far to the left as Ian Lind does not make it correct to bestow the label “conservative” upon that person.
To use a perhaps not apt anaolgy, this is a bit like someone leaving the Capaign Spending Commission to run for office, losing, and returning to the Commission to bird-dog those — including their victorious opponent — that they would have joined.
Will she use her position to undermine past or future/potential political oppoentns? Will she use her position to promote some agenda on which she will later run? Can she be objective? With all the talking head “reporter” talent out there (since, let’s face it, most of the money goes to the anchors), you’d think HNN would stay away from her and others like her. She should go work for the GOP or Grassroots Institute in public affairs.
It may may not be “wrong” but it doesn’t look right and that used to count for something.
The notion that journalists have no biases is laughable and the idea of trusting a newscaster verges on farce. However, a little background regarding Hawaii News Now may be in order. The news director, form Honolulu Advertiser editor Mark Platte, is a born-again Christian and right-wing Republican. His biases influenced news coverage at the now-defunct Advertiser, especially in the Hanabusa-Djou race. It would be foolish to not expect the same at Hawaii News Now. Which, in fact, is why the domination of three local news stations by one owner is so dangerous.
Yeah, his hand was so heavy at the Advertiser in the Hanabusa-Djou race that we endorsed Ed Case.
Advertiser was always in the tank for Case. Leaning right meant that it cast Case as a “moderate,” with clear implication that Hanabusa was a radical. Djou’s label — “fiscally conservative” Republican.
The Advertiser was just too poorly managed to accomplish much orchestrated bias. It certainly crept in, but due to chaos, not conspiracy. [Comment edited]
Very little effort was needed to orchestrate it. All the major political stories were vetted by senior editors who were well aware of (or shared) Platte’s views and who ensured the stories didn’t conflict with them. Furthermore, as in most newspapers, once the preferences and biases of senior management are known, reporters tended to stick to the party line. And, finally, at the Advertiser, the lead political reporter was completely in the tank for Ed Case.
Ramsay not conservative?? Just take a look at her campaign web site!!
We looked at this on December 6th.
http://honolulunotes.com/2010/12/06/2285/
Ian has valid concerns and they still need to be addressed.
To the main question: Unless equivocating and sucking up to corporate masters suddenly stops paying or falls out of vogue, both politicians and newscasters should continue to cross over nicely.
It’s also possible there would be an effort to make sure Wharton stays on the fluff beat that fills “Sunrise,” and not let her get anywhere near stories where her biases could sway story production. But newsrooms are short-staffed, and that may not be realisic . . .