Yesterday I was reading an article about blogging policies and repercussions for journalists (via Romenesko, obviously) and had the expected “how does it affect ME?” response of wondering whether the Spokesman has a policy. The next paragraph answered my question:

The Spokesman-Review in Spokane, Washington, is another paper with an explicit policy – a three-paragraph, seemingly all-bases-covered rundown that warns against a number of actions, including threatening the paper’s credibility and objectivity; writing about one’s professional work or partisan beliefs; and posting anything that might put one’s “moral character” into question. Also, slapped onto the end of its policy, the paper includes this line: “Rather than engage in the futile task of listing what is and isn’t appropriate, we expect simply that you don’t do anything that would embarrass or unpleasantly surprise editors or colleagues.”

I looked for a while yesterday, maybe 10 minutes, and couldn’t find this policy in my newly acquired staff handbook or the company intranet. But I probably just don’t know where to look. Odd that it doesn’t appear the writer of the article actually talked to anybody at the Spokesman.

All this blogging hullabaloo is just the newest product of an a weird dichotomy in news industry. You have to be an unconditional fan of free speech, and at the same time forfeit your own personal right to express opinions. It’s kind of fake, yeah, because obviously everyone has opinions, political and otherwise, whether we talk about them or not. On the other hand, in a way it’s like the tree falling in the middle of the forest: If you support a particular candidate, for example, but never say anything about it, does it really count as supporting them at all? The whole point is credibility, especially in a world where most of the public believes media outlets are maliciously biased, so I do actually believe objectivity is a full-time job. But I also think it’s dumb if newspapers get too terrified about personal blogs having too much personality. It’s disheartening to think newspapers’ “transparency” mantra is just as PR-oriented and artificial as all the blather journalists are supposed to cut through. Credible is not synonymous with stiflingly professional. I’m a firm believer that the future of newspapers relies on earning credibility through solid journalism and open doors. There are real people behind the bylines and processes behind the stories. Whether in government or the watching media, closed doors are always cause for suspicion. We may as well be open about our work and who we are as people.

In any case, I know of a handful of people who blog and also happen to work at the Spokesman. In most cases it’s not something they (we?) are trying to hide at all. My philosophy of decency is based on the Grandma Standard, as in my grandma reads my blog.