Objectivity is a serious subject for newspeople

I (heart) Obama.

Just kidding!

I don't (heart) anybody in politics.

At least, not in real life. I don't give money to them, put bumper stickers on my car or signs in my yard. I'm not even sure if I can tell people whom I'm voting for today.

I don't do any of these things for one simple reason: My employer forbids me to exercise any of these fundamental freedoms, no matter how excited I may be about this year's presidential sweepstakes.

To which I say: Good for my employer.

Should I be outraged? As a loyal American interested in politics and working in an industry that's all about freedom of expression, you'd think a bumper sticker would be right up my alley. Or putting in a few hours on a weekend to lick some envelopes for a candidate.

But I'm not outraged. I'm not even peeved.

I know this will sound quaint to lots of readers, if not downright phony, but most of us at the newspaper take seriously the idea of shunning involvement in partisan politics.

It's right there in Times guidelines. "Staff members may not engage in political advocacy -- as members of a campaign or an organization specifically concerned with political change. Nor may they contribute money to a partisan campaign or candidate. . . . Staff members should avoid public expressions or demonstrations of their political views -- bumper stickers, lawn signs and the like."

Normally, we wouldn't care. But John McCain versus Mitt Romney? Hillary Clinton versus Barack Obama?

Come on, this is exciting!

When I talk about political neutrality, longtime followers of this column may be spitting out their orange juice. Let's just say a reader here and there has detected a leftward tilt in my worldview.

The truth is, columnists have more latitude than news reporters to pipe up. But please make a note that I'm registered as an independent -- a career-long imperative I've followed since told to do so 30-some years ago.

But should we in the news business camouflage our political leanings?

Lots of readers say we ought to quit kidding ourselves, because we're not kidding them.

Better to just come out and show where you stand. If that means marching at antiwar rallies or handing out anti-abortion pamphlets, so be it.

Bad idea. Believe it or not, we are trying to cover these controversial social issues with objectivity. And we still have the belief that people belonging to Greenpeace, for example, shouldn't be covering the environment.