April 2, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE technology writer Henry Norr was suspended from his job last week after being arrested in an antiwar civil disobedience action.

Although editors at the paper have cited Norr's misuse of sick time as the reason for the suspension, it's clear to observers both at the paper and outside that Norr is actually being punished for engaging in political activity, a decision that raises complicated issues of free speech, journalistic ethics, and wartime ethos.

Unlike many big-city daily papers', the Chronicle's ethics policy doesn't ban reporters from protesting. "The Chronicle does not forbid employees from engaging in political activities but needs to prevent any appearance of a conflict of interest," the ethics policy, a copy of which was obtained by the Bay Guardian, states.

Norr said he had been very open and honest with his supervisors about his desire to actively oppose the war. On March 14 he requested a month's leave of absence to devote myself to antiwar activities. The request was never acted on, but Norr heard indirectly that editor Phil Bronstein and managing editor Robert Rosenthal had "concerns" about the request.

Before March 20, the day he was arrested – for helping block the intersection of Market and Sansome Streets in front of Citicorp and the British Consulate-General (along with his daughter and his wife, Jean Tepperman, a former Bay Guardian news editor) – Norr had sent an e-mail to his direct supervisors letting them know of his intentions.

The next day he returned to work to finish his regular column and fill out his time card. "For Thursday, the day I spent in jail, I took a sick day. I did so because I was sick – heartsick over the beginning of the war, nauseated by the lies and the arrogance and the stupidity that led to it, and deeply depressed by the death and destruction it would bring," Norr wrote in an e-mail to the Bay Guardian.

Norr also noted the irony of a war-related article that appeared on the Chron's front page that day, headlined "The Home Front: Battles with depression, stress are taking their toll." It made the point that some people literally are getting sick over this war.

But the Chronicle brass appear to have already decided to punish Norr. They killed his column for the week (which was about spam, not anything war related) before his time card was even processed, then informed him of his suspension a few days later. (Bronstein did not return any of several phone calls requesting comment for this article.)

Interviewed by telephone, Norr said that even though he's awaiting word from the editors about whether he'll be fired, he has no qualms about publicizing what he sees as a violation of his rights as a citizen. "It's a political issue, and I decided to treat it as a political matter."

Norr has worked full-time for the Chron for the last four years and is widely liked and respected by his colleagues. His passion for progressive politics is also widely known and has caused minor clashes with Chronicle brass in the past. He has filed a grievance with his union over his suspension.

On the day after Norr's suspension, March 25, Bronstein sent an e-mail to Chronicle staff (which was forwarded to the Bay Guardian by an employee) regarding the paper's conflict-of-interest policies, which began, "At momentous and emotional times like these, we need to remind ourselves about our responsibilities as journalists and how those responsibilities intersect with personal feelings and beliefs."

Bronstein said the key issue was the newspaper's credibility with readers. He then went on to reiterate various company policies before reinforcing their relevance in the context of the war.

"If you're going to participate in a public way in any demonstration involving the war, you must clear it with a department head who will then notify one of us. If you cover a beat or handle stories, photos etc. that may involve that conflict, your publicly-expressed opinions may create at least the appearance of a conflict of interest or bias," Bronstein wrote.

Observers say Norr's case is fraught with interesting legal and political issues.

"It certainly seems ironic that First Amendment rights are being curtailed by an organization that strongly asserts its First Amendment rights," Bill McNeill, with the Employment Law Center, said. Yet irony and philosophy aside, he said the newspaper probably is acting within its rights. "It doesn't pass the smell test, but that doesn't mean it's illegal."

In fact, Jim Ewert, legal counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, agreed that while the issue of political activities by journalists is complicated, the paper's legal rights to ban political activity by writers are fairly clear.

He cited a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the suspension of a McClatchy Newspapers reporter who had been arrested during an abortion rally.

"The Ninth Circuit found there is a right that newspapers have to regulate activity that would affect the paper's credibility," Ewert said.

Still, in that case, the reporter in question covered the health beat, something directly related to the abortion issue. Norr argues that because his technology column doesn't delve into matters of politics or war, he should be free to speak out against war as a private citizen.

Some say currently accepted rules of the mainstream media don't appear to be on Norr's side.

"As a journalist, we do make certain sacrifices, and one of those is the ability to be politically active on many issues," said Kelly McBride, an ethics faculty member at the Poynter Institute media think tank. "The decision is, do you want to be a journalist or an activist, because the two aren't compatible."

But Jeff Perlstein, executive director of Media Alliance, disagrees. "I think we should be quite concerned that journalists are being punished for expressing their views or engaging with the important issues of the day," he said.