You Can Take Mike Elk out of the Union, but You Can’t Take the Union out of Mike Elk

Can union activists be unbiased labor reporters?

Columbia Professor Ari Paul thinks so.

In a lengthy defense of Mike Elk, a union supporter controversially hired by POLITICO to cover labor and employment, Paul argues that there is no conflict of interest in such an arrangement:

"It’s true that Elk’s sympathies rest with unions…It shouldn’t be surprising. To suggest one must be neutral on the question of unionization in order to cover the labor beat is like saying a baseball fan can’t like the Red Sox even if she’s from Boston. Or that art coverage can only be conducted by those with no interest in the subject.”

The Center for Worker Freedom disagrees.  In a phone interview with the Daily Caller, CWF’s Matt Patterson sliced this argument into ribbons, tied it into a pretty bow, and handed it back to Paul just in time for Valentine’s Day:

"It’s either a dishonest or misinformed defense of Mr. Elk and here’s why…The sports analogy is ridiculous. Even if a sports reporter was a Red Sox fan it would be unprofessional for that reporter to advocate for the Red Sox. What makes Mike Elk a special situation is he has been an activist for organized labor. The very fact that he’s trying to organize Politico, where he works, shows that he cannot be objective in labor reporting. He’s so pro union that he’s trying to start a union. We had fears about this when Elk was hired. So the fact that he wants to start a union there justifies our fears.”

To read the Daily Caller’s latest report on the controversy, click here.