My inaugural piece for The Huffington Post, published this past Friday, discussed the political calculus and shrewdness of President Obama's endorsement of an incumbent Senator and 2010 candidate from my home state of Colorado.
In my accompanying bio (which you can still view as it stood then by clicking my photo at the top of any of my pieces), I disclosed what I considered to be pertinent aspects of why I was writing about issues relevant to my state. Namely, the fact that I spent my formative years there, I covered national politics extensively in the capital city a year ago, and my broader experience in journalism gives me insight into tackling both the policy and political considerations of the burgeoning and increasingly relevant Western political region.
I also acknowledged my political leanings, in the form of my disclosure that I am currently employed by a Democratic-leaning polling/strategic consulting firm. In that I am a registered Democrat is the only way in which such information is relevant.
Four days after my piece was published, David Sirota, a self-proclaimed journalist himself, questioned my motives for writing about a candidate for public office considering my affiliations with a private organization that, among other things, helps elect candidates to public office.
As a former president of a daily college newspaper, let me be abundantly clear about one thing: I understand conflicts of interest for journalists better than most, I recognize where the lines between honest commentary and propagandizing lie. I have come nowhere near crossing those lines.
Let me say that again: any and all opinions you read under my byline are solely mine, and in no way reflect the opinions or views of the company by which I am employed.
Furthermore, never have I -- nor will I -- write about any candidate that the organization I work for calls a client. I will not write about the opponents of clients, either, as to avoid even as much as approaching a potential conflict of interest.
During my college years, I was privileged enough to lead a newspaper institution for a year, presiding over an institution encapsulating nearly 137 years of history. While I wrote and edited, my primary duty was to uphold the traditions, reputations, and integrity of that organization. I did not take that task lightly then, and as I apply my words to new pages, I continue to respect the tenants and ethics of journalism to the greatest degree.
Of Mr. Sirota's swipes, the only one that carried with it any shred of validity was the one calling my piece "overwrought and almost laughably clichéd." As a reader, he, like everyone else, is entitled to that viewpoint.
But to suggest anything otherwise -- especially that I have in any way written with the intention of promoting any interests of any clients or potential clients -- fails to recognize the seriousness with which I take this profession that he himself calls himself a part of, as well as the flimsiness of his attack.
The crux of my piece considered the standing of a decision made by the President of the United States, and tangential -- at best -- was the connection to any other organization. That I, an admitted Democrat, would share views with like-minded men and institutions is no surprise. In fact, it's to be expected, and I think most readers understood that. Mr. Sirota was not one of them.
It was my intention in crafting my biography to, again, highlight insights I have into the issues I will discuss, not to confusingly conflate my own views with those of the organization where I work. Unfortunately for everyone, Mr. Sirota has tried, and failed, to do that here.
Perhaps next time, he will better consider that with my well-disclosed shared ideology with more than one of the piece's subjects, I, as a writer who shares many of the principles discussed in his piece will, naturally, support those principles in the wider world. Not always -- and certainly never in an entry that bears my name -- is any conflicted interest involved.