Obama Objectivity

Here's an interesting and very public ethics quarrel between two well-known journalists.

A little background: Todd Gitlin writes a column for the Columbia Journalism Review that critiques Tim Russert's interviews. A recent critique was of Russert's interview with Barack Obama.

From the top:

Dan Kennedy: Shouldn't CJR have chosen someone other than Todd Gitlin to write about Tim Russert? Gitlin's debut isn't bad. But look at this: Gitlin publicly announced his support for Barack Obama back in February.

Todd Gitlin: I’m not writing a column on Obama. I’m writing a column on Tim Russert. I’ve been writing about Russert for a decade or so. I was writing about him—critically, in the main—when I’d never heard of Barack Obama. I’ll write straight about Russert whatever his subject. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, or if Obama is, I’ll still treat him straight. If you think I get Russert wrong, criticize me for that.

Dan Kennedy comes back on his blog: "You and I have heard of Obama, and you've publicly endorsed him. Thus you've forfeited the right to evaluate Russert's coverage of the presidential campaign without disclosing that fact. And if you do disclose it, fewer people will take you seriously. This is basic journalism ethics. Do you not get it?"

I'm curious about whether they discussed these issues privately before taking to the page.

Will there be a next punch?