On April 7, the Monday after thousands of New Yorkers gathered on Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue to protest President Donald Trump’s policies, THE CITY’s editor-in-chief, Richard Kim, sent his staff an email reminding them of the nonprofit’s ethics policies for political protests.
Kim wasn’t worried that CITY journalists had violated its policies, which encourage them to participate in community life but also warn against political engagement in areas they cover. Instead, he told me, he was being proactive, in case THE CITY’s reporters and editors had any questions about attending partisan rallies.
“You should NOT participate in them as a demonstrator,” Kim wrote in the April 7 email. “I expect these protests to grow, and any number of reporters and editors may be called on to cover them in the future. Participating in any one of them will obviously impair our ability to do so.”
The Trump protest, Kim pointed out in the email, featured posters criticizing New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ relationship with the president, as well as signs celebrating New York’s congestion pricing policy, which Trump has sought to end. “Our reporting on these subjects,” Kim told staffers, “could be discredited if newsroom folks participate in such actions.”
Kim’s email was, in a way, the ethics equivalent of a layup. Just about every newsroom ethics code I’ve read, from outlets large and small, advises reporters and editors to avoid engaging overtly in partisan politics, even in their private lives. Don’t give money to political candidates. Don’t put up lawn signs. Don’t go to candidates’ rallies or fundraisers.
The reasoning is simple: If journalists give their time or money to partisan political candidates or causes, the public may lose trust in their newsrooms’ ability to report the news fairly.
Nonprofit newsrooms, moreover, have to be particularly vigilant about journalists’ engaging in partisan politics because federal tax laws prohibit tax-exempt groups from taking sides in political campaigns.
But beyond journalism’s near-unanimity on partisan campaign participation, the rules on civic engagement vary across newsrooms. The Society of Professional Journalists, whose ethics code often serves as a starting point for news organizations developing their own policies, simply advises journalists to “avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.”
That common-sense advice has been interpreted differently by different outlets. The New York Times, for instance, bars reporters and editors from participating in marches or rallies (or even signing petitions) on any issue of public concern, not just political protests. Times journalists can’t even raise money for religious or educational groups if those groups might figure in Times coverage.
THE CITY’s rules on civic engagement take a more moderate approach, and Kim said, were tailored to its dual missions of championing New Yorkers’ involvement with their communities while covering the city with rigor, impartiality and independence.
So, Kim explained, reporters and editors for THE CITY can serve on local committees, speak up at community board meetings, and participate in non-partisan demonstrations like New York City’s annual Pride March – but only if those activities pose no conflict with their specific editorial responsibilities. THE CITY’s education reporters and editors, for example, can’t serve on their local education panels. A housing reporter can’t protest against a development project in her neighborhood. And journalists who want to march in non-partisan rallies have to assess whether the events have become more political than celebratory.
THE CITY’s policy advises journalists to consult top editors when there’s a “gray zone,” but Kim said his reporters and editors haven’t had much trouble avoiding conflicts of interest that would undermine the newsroom’s credibility as an impartial source of information.
“We really want to talk to all New Yorkers and assemble facts that are unimpeachable so that there’s a common understanding,” Kim said. “But if there’s not a set of facts that people agree on, we’re in trouble. We see ourselves filling that role. So for that reason, it’s very important for us to be nonpartisan in our outlook.”