The Revolving Door Between Journalism and Politics
This essay examines the "revolving door" policy that allows politicians and journalists to move freely between their respective fields, as discussed in Alicia Shepherd's 1997 article in the American Journalism Review. The paper critiques Shepherd's predominantly one-sided argument that former politicians cannot provide unbiased journalism, while also advancing a counterargument: that political experience may actually enhance a journalist's effectiveness by providing insider knowledge. Drawing on examples ranging from George Stephanopoulos to Pat Buchanan, the essay ultimately argues that all journalists carry personal biases and that political experience, properly managed, can be an asset rather than a liability to the profession.
- Introduction: Blurring the Lines Between Journalism and Politics: Defines the revolving door policy and its implications
- Shepherd's Argument Against the Revolving Door: Shepherd argues ex-politicians cannot report without bias
- Hypocrisy in the Critique of Bias: Shepherd's own argument is critiqued for one-sidedness
- The Value of Political Experience in Journalism: Insider knowledge enhances journalists' political reporting
- Bias, Objectivity, and the Watchdog Role: All journalists carry bias; objectivity is a professional practice
- Conclusion: Political experience can be an asset, not a disqualifier
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The essay engages critically with a specific source article rather than simply summarizing it, identifying a logical inconsistency — Shepherd's own apparent bias while arguing against bias — which adds analytical depth.
- The counterargument is well-developed and grounded in reasoning about the nature of bias itself, making a nuanced claim that political experience can be an asset rather than a disqualifier.
- The use of the Sun Tzu quotation as a rhetorical framing device ("know thy enemy") effectively bridges the abstract concept of insider knowledge to the practical duties of political journalism.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates source critique — the ability to engage with a published argument, acknowledge its strengths, and identify its weaknesses or internal contradictions. By pointing out that Shepherd devotes only a single paragraph to the opposing view, the student models how to evaluate the rhetorical balance and fairness of a scholarly or journalistic source.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens by introducing the revolving door concept and Shepherd's position, then critiques her argument for its one-sidedness, and finally builds an affirmative case for the value of political experience in journalism. The conclusion synthesizes both perspectives by grounding the discussion in a universal claim about journalist bias. The structure moves from summary to critique to original argument — a classic analytical essay progression.
Introduction: Blurring the Lines Between Journalism and Politics
One of the most debated practices in modern media is the revolving door policy that allows politicians to enter journalism and journalists to leave their profession, become politicians, and then return to the journalism industry. As journalism has evolved, the boundaries between these two fields have grown increasingly porous. Shepherd (1997) notes that "decades ago, the line of demarcation between journalists and politicians was as sharply defined as the one between cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians" (p. 19). However, the revolving door policy that allows individuals to move between either field — and back again — may be blurring these once distinct lines.
Shepherd's Argument Against the Revolving Door
Shepherd's (1997) position is quite clear on this matter. Her thoughts echo those of journalism professional Penny Crone, who provides a sidebar interview to the article. Shepherd clearly believes that welcoming former politicians — and those who have worked on political campaigns or in branches of government — into journalism does a disservice to the profession, because such individuals cannot provide unbiased opinions on news matters.
She recounts a forum she attended in Washington, D.C., in the 1970s and cites a Washington Post reporter as saying, "Once you go over to the other side, you can never come back" (p. 21). Shepherd further cites David Broder's comments at a National Press Club dinner: "Once the press 'loses its distinctive identity (…) it will not be long before we lose our freedom'" (p. 21). She continues by surveying the numerous individuals who have passed through this revolving door, from Clinton's senior presidential adviser George Stephanopoulos — who later joined ABC's roster of journalists — to Pat Buchanan's decades-long back-and-forth between politics and journalism.
Hypocrisy in the Critique of Bias
Shepherd (1997) is fairly heavy-handed in her treatment of whether the revolving door policy has any benefits. Only briefly — in the form of a single paragraph — does she acknowledge the potential value of a reporter having experience in the political field. One could consider this somewhat hypocritical: in arguing the need for unbiased reporting and claiming that a foray into the political arena negates a journalist's objectivity, Shepherd herself appears unable to provide an unbiased discussion of this debatable topic. Clearly, there are legitimate concerns about allowing politicians into the often adversarial field of political journalism; however, Shepherd fails to adequately recognize how this practice can also be beneficial.
Conclusion
Although someone has been in the political arena, they too can report objectively. Bringing former political players into journalism can offer new insight and perspective precisely because of their political experience. That holds real value, and the increasing prevalence of this practice suggests that news organizations across the country have come to recognize it as such.
References
Shepherd, A. (Jul/Aug 1997). The revolving door. American Journalism Review, pp. 19–21.
Sun Tzu quotes. (2010). Retrieved February 23, 2011, from
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.