Should Non-Partisan Media Include Affiliation Next to Names?
By W. E. Messamore on 08/09/2012 in elections, independent, independents, journalism, media, news, non-partisan, nonpartisan, politics with 16 CommentsRead Time: 2 - 3 minutes
Here’s an open question for the entire IVN community:
When reporting news about a politician, should non-partisan media list their party affiliation as is customary in a lot of news reports?
I was thinking about this the other day. If what should matter is the person, their record, their platform, their credentials, and their character, not their party, then as new non-partisan media emerge, should we set a different journalistic convention and decline to offer up a politician’s party affiliation unless it’s somehow necessarily relevant to the story?
Instead of, “Rep. Paul Ryan (R-MN),” should we just write, “Rep. Paul Ryan,” or “Rep. Paul Ryan (MN)?” Why not make Ryan stand on his own merits as an individual lawmaker and just make him “Paul Ryan?” Isn’t that all that Independents are saying should matter anyways? If we stop viewing politicians as members of parties, but as individual human beings elected by their neighbors to make policy for them, won’t we start winning part of the battle against uncritical, partisan groupthink by default? Simply by changing our language to change our attitudes?
We can have a lot more fun with this idea too. What if instead of just eliminating the conventional use of party affiliation to brand politicians in news stories, we replaced it with a more meaningful affiliation? One idea that occurred to me was: What if a news source always followed a politician’s name with the stock ticker symbol for the company whose employees gave him or her the greatest amount of campaign contributions in the current or most recent election cycle?
What do you think? Should non-partisan journalism drop the party labels? Should it replace them? If so, with what?
Instead of Barack Obama (D) and Mitt Romney (R), you would get: Barack Obama (MSFT) and Mitt Romney (GS), for Microsoft and Goldman Sachs. If the largest donor company is privately held, as in the case of Paul Ryan used as an example above, the convention could be to simply list its name thusly: Paul Ryan (Baker Tilly). In fact, it wouldn’t be too cumbersome just to do that for everyone and dispense with the stock abbreviation: Barack Obama (Microsoft) and Mitt Romney (Goldman Sachs).





Leave Your Comment →
16 Comments
Craig D. Schlesinger
08.09.2012
@craigschlesinger
I love the stock ticker idea!
Carlos Bonilla
08.09.2012
@cbonilla
Stock ticker!
Dan Richards
08.09.2012
@danrich
I like the ticker idea, but also think that it should list their affiliation for informational purposes. Then follow it with the last five votes they were at, something like, John Doe (d-Ohio) H1234 Boarder fence-nay. . . h1235 Budget adjustment- yea. . . h1236 subcommittee reduction-nay. . . ect.
That would give the viewer more functional information.
Brenda Fuller Shriver
08.09.2012
If they didn’t list the party affiliation, people would be more likely to listen to the message. If you’re a Rep and a Dem is speaking, for example, you’re likely to disagree with the message based on party affiliation alone.
Sanjay
08.12.2012
Messamore is a good writer, but this is a poor column. The right way is a hypocrisy check. Ex: If a Zionist like Tom Friedman, Krauthammer, Kristol preaches open borders for America/ Europe, but ban on non-Jews to Israel, like recently expelled 60,000 Black African refugees, then he should declare it.
Frauds like Mark levin, Michael Savage (Aka Weiner), should prove if they blew their limbs in foreign wars before forcing White Children 18-23y to die for Jewish interests instead of getting married and starting families in America.
Fraudsters like John Stossel who marry in their own ethnic group but lecture interracial marriage for Whites, should declare if they married Black, live with Blacks, send their kids to Black schools.
So hypocrisy check is better than affiliation declaration.
Donna Moser
08.09.2012
I would go even further and eliminate affiliations from the ballot (along with straight party voting). In response to voters who claim that they would not know who to vote for unless there’s a “D” or “R” beside the name, I reply that if that’s all you care about, perhaps you shouldn’t be voting anyway.
W. E. Messamore
08.09.2012
@W__E__Messamore
Great idea and great point!
Dennis Jacques
08.09.2012
Yes, unless the person named IS non-partisan, ie; an independent.
Michael Allen Mincy
08.09.2012
No, because you need to know what and who is what. Today’s Political environment is the problem,it’s like the kids on the playground mentality.One idea would be to ban Political adds like they did cigarette adds- Bad for you- and another is people and politicians need to be checked ie.,If someone said or told a lie about me or my cause I would call them a ‘Liar’ without worrying about the political politeness/correctness of it but that’s just me :)
Chad Peace
08.09.2012
@Chad_Peace
Wes, I agree. And IVN is working on it!
Chad Peace
08.09.2012
@Chad_Peace
I was referring to journalists having party affiliations/political tendency by their name btw
Ronald Williams
08.09.2012
No, and further, when someone is elected to serve a community, state or the nation, no matter what party they ran as they serve all the people when elected. They not be able to use the party affiliation while serving all.
Ronald Williams
08.09.2012
Sorry for the mistake, should be “they should not be able to use…”
Judy Ferro
08.10.2012
You can’t will people to be non-partisan.
lyn
08.11.2012
I THINK THAT ALL MEDIA NEEDS TO LIST THEMSELVES AS DEM OR REP OR ETC… WE ALL KNOW THAT TV, NEWSPAPERS , ENTERTAINMENT SHOWS, ACTORS/ ACTRESSES, ONLINE NEWS AND OTHERS ARE BIASED.. JUST REVEAL ALL OF YOUR BIAS UPFRONT LIKE ALL OF THE TITLES YOU WANT TO GIVE TO POLITICIANS AND OTHER US CITIZENS , YOU TITLE US , YOU CAN ALSO TITLE YOURSELVES … THAT WAY ALL WHO READ YOUR ARTICLES CAN SEE WHAT PARTY YOU ARE SUPPORTING AND OTHERS YOU ARE BASHING – UP FRONT AND NOT SLYLY ALLUDING BETWEEN THE LINES …..
Maria Rosario
08.11.2012
It should be included. Yes. Why deny something you are in? Party affiliation matters.. Always..