Opening up discussion

There's nothing like a good debate.\nAcross the country this week, politicians, political scientists, TV pundits and college students debated the nomination of Harriet Miers and the confirmation of John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court. Advocates on both sides attacked their opposition, calling them stupid and questioning their credibility.\nAs you can probably imagine, the Indiana Daily Student newsroom wasn't separated from any debate. Almost everyone on the staff wanted to express their views on the candidates' qualifications. \n"Roberts trusts precedent and will interpret the law faithfully," some said. "He isn't being forthcoming about his opinions, which isn't enough for a lifetime appointment," said others.\nIn past semesters, especially during the 2004 election, political discussion in the newsroom got out of control. Simple debates turned into full-blown arguments with friends and coworkers yelling at one another. \nSome questioned how certain writers could objectively cover politics with such strong opinions. The decision was made to ban political discussion in the newsroom, even if it was friendly.\nBut is it really possible to stifle political discussion in a newsroom?\nRealistically, you can't. Good journalists are curious. They think about things. They ask tough questions. If you can be truly insightful and analytical and not form opinions on topics, I would be shocked. People are bound to have strong opinions and since we are communicators-in-training, you can't expect a group of us to shut our mouths.\nSo, does this affect our credibility? I don't believe so. Managing Editor Tony Sams wrote in a past column once, "Find me a journalist who doesn't bring some kind of baggage into a newsroom ... and I'll show you the blandest, most impersonal news-writing dud you'll ever meet (that, or I'll show you a liar)." \nThe question is: when should we keep our opinions to ourselves?\nThe standard our management team believes in is that if someone is covering politics or sports or any sort of beat, then he or she should refrain from discussing that topic on the record. No one can be the IU basketball reporter and go on a radio show and say head coach Mike Davis should be fired. Nobody would trust what he or she writes again.\nThat doesn't mean IDS writers can't rail on Bush in their classes. It also doesn't mean a football writer couldn't express his distaste for Davis. But for the beat reporter, the appearance of objectivity is a top priority, so it's necessary to keep certain opinions to oneself.\nIt doesn't mean we discourage political discussion in the newsroom. In fact, we encourage it. We learn more about the other side of a story and can, in fact, become more objective from hearing opposing arguments. The key is to keep it productive and for only certain people to put their opinions in print.\nWe have started an "IU Angles" online section of our Web site, so you can listen in on our political discussions. The first installment featured Arts Editor Adam Sedia and City & State Editor Sam Nissen debating Roberts' qualifications. Expect more in the future.\nBut the discussion isn't just limited to us. We encourage anyone with an opinion to write to letters@indiana.edu. We encourage anyone who wants to share a 50-word rant on sports to e-mail sports@idsnews.com and anyone who wants to participate in an "IU Angles" either through print or audio to e-mail world@idsnews.com.