That is ridiculous. Are we readers so stupid that we think you can't report and have an opinion at the same time?

Frankly, no job is worth being disenfranchised.

Non-partisan staff at the legislature face similar restrictions. Federal judges and, to a lesser extent, state judges also are limited in this regard.

Most of the above are barred from displaying partisan yard signs or bumper stickers.

That's a shame....these are among the best-informed people, were they to make their opinions known it would only be good for their fellow voters and caucus-goers.

Help us out here, David. didn't a reporter for the News Tribune get into trouble over some political involvement thing a few years ago, she was then reprimanded or disciplined or fired or something, and then sued the paper and won in court? Am I remembering this wrong? Isn't there a first amendment issue here?

So they can't vote?

Who died and made you King?

People like me served so they could vote.

This is just ... wrong.

We all know reporters, editors, owners, and the people who answer phones at the front desk... all have an opinion. No one exists in a vacuum. For God's sake, participate. However, they are hoping to not have the ratings drop (or its equal) that Dave Ross had once he ran as a DEM. It happened, so I guess there's some legitimate concern. Unfortunately, that is just a reality of the horrible division in this country that one candidate is trying to move beyond.

We should judge each other based on the quality of our work.

We should all participate.

What a farce! Nobody thinks the Seattle Times, or anyone who writes for it, is "objective." After all, this is the same newspaper that kept Bob Twiss on for years after he was busted for putting his byline on a Boeing press release. All we ask is that the reporting and editing fairly represent what happened. Participating in a party caucus hardly compromises that.

If reporters and editors at the Seattle Times are so gutless as to knuckle under to this intimidation, to give up your rights as American citizens just because some dog-shooting little sociopath signs your paychecks, why would we think you had the integrity to report ANYTHING fairly?

Management and ownership continue to delude themselves that this stupid policy helps the company. It does not. It makes the ownership and management even greater objects of ridicule than they already are. It only accelerates the inexorable, and well-deserved, death spiral of a once decent organization.

All the "good little Germans" in the newsroom who "go along to get along" are just cutting the throats of their own credibility and their own careers.

If ever there was a reason never to associate with the P-I this is it.

Times. I meant the Times. *sigh*

This is kind of funny. Some reporters are always suspect--for good reason and others without good reason. Since the media faces a credibility gap, often writing "news" stories that sound more like political proselytizing than news, it's probably not a good idea to add fuel to the fire.

THIS is wrong! You DO NOT give up your rights as a citizen for a job! These people all have the right to vote and NO employer should think he has the power to strip it away.

The newspaper and city needs to back off.

Calm down, everyone. The paper never said we couldn't vote. It just said that if you do participate in a caucus -- for which you have to sign up for that political party, in effect joining the organization -- then you can't cover politics. We don't let our environmental reporters join Greenpeace or the American Forestry Association, either. This is a good thing. BTW, this is why I support the old open primary system we used to have where the parties didn't force you to enlist before you vote.

Gen. George S. Patton never voted. Believing strongly in civilian authority over the military, he thought it improper for a serving officer to participate in the selection of his superiors. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

The Seattle Times is a private employer, and, interesting point this, it's employees don't have "First Amendment rights" as the term is commonly understood; none of us do if we work for another.

While the overwhelming majority of private employers aren't going to ask whether you're a Romney, Obama, or uncommitted caucus attende, on the rare occassion when that compromises your employment, or could even appear to compromise it, then an employer can ask you to not participate.

You have to make a choice: Go to the caucus or write about politics for The Times. You don't get everything in life.

It's interesting that Postman makes no mention of any Times' employees going on the warpath over this, or any grievance filed by the union. I'm going to suspect that most affected employees probably already came to the conclusion management announced via its memos.

If you wish to die upon a cross, best make it of sturdier stuff than old newspapers.

The Piper

Check the agenda, my union rep warned me that when, or should I say “if” I cast a republican primary ballot, that becomes record and I will start political fundraising calls from republicans. This is not to say that the union officially encourages casting the only ballot that counts, messing with the republican results, but imagine the bad press if left testifying reporters were caught poisoning the pond!

Gosh, I'm agreeing with The Piper.
Political REPORTERS (not editorialists, but REPORTERS) shouldn't be working for a campaign, anymore than health inspectors should work for restaurants.

You're not alone, I heard recently that non-partisan legislative staff couldn't partiicipate. But I checked that out and what I was told was there never has been a directive not to participate in the caucus or primary. But when the staff are hired they are told that if they participate in partisan activities that it could become difficult for them to protect their jobs is a legislator feels they are not non-partisan enough.

Danny, you mention the old primary. As I wrote in the post this could become a bigger deal if the parites are successful in thier efforts to get the voter lists from the regular state primary. Then we would be faced with the prospect of not voting at all in any primary, for legislature, county council, governor, etc. The U.S. supreme Court has said the primaries are a party functions, though, so if that's true maybe we shouldn't be involved.

Tyra, you remember correctly. There was a staffer involved in a local ballot measure campaign and the paper said that posed a conflict. My recollection is that the state Supreme Court said the paper had that right.