Following the (Journalists') money

When reporter John Harwood ran for a seat on the Standing Committee of Correspondents for the Congressional press galleries, he campaigned to require journalists to disclose the sources of income received from honoraria, speaking engagements, and other outside sources as a condition of accreditation to cover Congress. Harwood, the only candidate from a "Big Four" national newspaper -- The Wall Street Journal -- promptly lost the race (see "Where the Sun Doesn't Shine," cjr, May/June).

 But the issue won't die. In July, West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd took to the floor with a rousing speech castigating journalists who receive "thousands of dollars in speaking fees from the very groups they cover," and he introduced a non-binding "sense of the Senate" resolution calling for financial disclosure. His amendment passed, 60-39.

Byrd's amendment, attached to a legislative appropriations bill, carries little more than symbolic weight. But his similar companion bill will soon head to the Rules Committee, where the measure, and its constitutionality, will be debated in hearings. Marsha Berry, a spokeswoman for Byrd, says the senator is aware of the First Amendment concerns surrounding his proposal, and that his real goal is to get the press "to police itself in some fashion." Otherwise, she says, Byrd is "prepared to go forward" in his pursuit of an enforceable resolution.

Currently, applicants to Congress's daily print gallery are asked if their media employers provide more than half of their income, a broad question aimed at ensuring that reporters' primary income comes from journalism, and not lobbying or some other activity, before they are granted freedom to roam the halls of the Capitol. But the key difference is that the question is asked by the journalists who run the Standing Committee, not by the government. The Society of Professional Journalists issued a statement condemning the Byrd amendment on First Amendment grounds, while conceding that the outside earnings of "a few high-profile reporters" has become "a disturbing matter." Illinois Senator Paul Simon, a former journalist, voted against the amendment for similar reasons, but he called the issue "a legitimate concern." "I wouldn't want a reporter who received $10,000 for speaking at an NRA convention covering the issue of gun control," he says.

Meanwhile, at the end of the year, employees of The Wall Street Journal's Washington bureau will begin filling out forms detailing specific sources and the general range of outside income. The forms will be made available for public inspection. "I think it's something that's important for the press to do in order to maintain its credibility," says bureau chief Alan Murray. "But I think we should do it ourselves, and not have it coming from the outside. I think our readers have the right to know who's paying our bills."

cjr  |  archive  |  resources  |  contact  |  search  |  subscribe