Hi Andrea,

Anybody who works for a company knows you are a representative for the company especially when sending via work email. If you want to express your political feelings, do it on your personal time.

Usually these types of topics are also terms of employment too. Companies do not want to be on the front page of any newspaper unless their communications department arranged the story. Companies, especially news organizations, should not be exempt from setting high standards of behavior.

Now if I could only get my beloved National Public Radio to stop being the "Democratic Party Talking Points Radio." Currently, "All Things Considered" is more like "Only some things considered" or "Only Liberal Things Considered."

In civics class we were taught that "reporting" and anything called "news" was neutral. Editors got to express opinions on the editorial page. The entire thing (including opinion) was done in terms of severity and gravity. There were no punch lines or smirks at anyone's expense.

Now there is a tendency for "news" to be polarizing or entertaining. Reporters can become celebrities. We know we can't trust a snarky comedy news satire... so doesn't "real" news also lose credibility when it mocks or satirizes, or adopts the devices of entertainment and comedy?

It also seems strange that a "news" program can be relied upon for a particular political slant. I'm thinking of Fox but there are others where listeners will find their opinions reflected in a kind of comfort zone.

It might go to a greater good if reporters refrained from showing off their humor and irony sacrificed the assertion of self into their work, and just told the story straight, loose ends, discomfort and all.

Clever angles, circulation-grabbing headlines, gotcha tactics and selective quoting of sources are equally ways of making a story fit a reporters or an editor's preconception. For example, a BBC reporters insertion of the phrase "sexed up" into an interview with an arms expert may have been a such a ploy... but did it serve the discovery of the truth? Indeed the source lost his life in the ensuing mess.

The presence of these things effectively kills the credibility of a story and can have such ramifications.

There must be off-the-clock opportunities for reporters to be witty and creative.

The simple discipline of ego-less reportage of facts should be enough to hold feet to the fire on all sides.

We have to be aware of what were committing to paper (or email), and I do agree that it's a bad idea to send personal messages from company email accounts. That said, why can't reporters (or anyone else) have opinions independent of their professional lives? I don't think John Green should have apologized to the White House - grow up! Not everyone respects/agrees with the President, and there shouldn't be a penalty for it.

"I mean, couldn't I theoretically be both snarky about a politician and fair to them in my coverage?"

It's a rhetorical question but I'm going to answer it anyway... the answer is yes... and no.

Any communication from a work email address is an official correspondence. Take out the word email and replace it with communication, then take out your name and replace it with "NPR Representative" (or whatever company) and you'll see what I mean.

On the flip side, an email from your private address is a communication from you and only you. You should be free to express any thoughts, opinions, or rants you want. The exception is where the destination address is an official company address.

A lot of people relate an email to a personal converstion between them and the person in the To: line. The only time this is true is when your address and the destination address doesn't end with YourCompanyName.com (or TheirCompanyName.com).

So, Andrea, ever hear NPR reporters and editors bashing President Bush or the Republicans in the newsroom? I am sure this never happens, of course.