At a university like Stanford, full of engaged students who are involved in a range of activities, it’s not surprising that students who work for the campus paper are going to have some conflicts of interest. This poses a challenge for The Daily, which has an obligation to present objective, unbiased reporting. Unfortunately, there have been a few recent cases where articles have been published that give the appearance at least of a conflict of interest.

On February 11, Mohammad Ali, a contributing writer for The Daily, wrote an article for the news section about a speech given by University of Michigan Islamic Studies Professor Sherman Jackson. The article outlined the talk, which was about the role of Islamic law in society.

Less than two weeks later, Ali wrote an op-ed [“The power of knowledge,” Feb. 20] criticizing a previous op-ed on Islam by Michael Lucas [“Racism and intolerance,” Feb. 15]. Lucas, an adult film actor who’d recently spoken on campus and had drawn criticism for racism, had defended his “disdain for Islam,” writing that Islamic ideology is “the most backwards and reactionary ideology on earth.”

Ali attacked Lucas for his “absurd remarks on Islam.” “What is most troubling about Mr. Lucas’s comments,” he wrote, “is his failure to differentiate between the religion of Islam itself and the way certain communities have applied it.”

By itself, there’s nothing wrong with the publication of Ali’s op-ed on Islam. Indeed, his article is an example of the sort of serious, intelligent discourse that belongs in The Daily’s opinions pages.

The problem is that the op-ed raises doubts about Ali’s objectivity in writing the earlier news article about Islam. Even if he was able to compartmentalize his own views, his article gives the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Ali didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment. Editor-in-chief Julie Klein told me that Ali had told her that he wasn’t a member of MSAN, the group that sponsored the talk, and he said that he didn’t think there was a conflict of interest. That certainly would have been more egregious, but simply writing an opinions piece so shortly thereafter on a closely related issue is enough, I think, to give the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Another example of apparent conflicts of interest occurred in The Daily’s political reporting. I’ve enjoyed The Daily’s coverage of the 2008 presidential election, especially the collection of articles on the California primary earlier in February.

In particular, Nick Parker and Patrick Fitzgerald — both former editors-in-chief of The Daily — have written excellent articles on aspects of the election over the past month. They were also publicly listed as being members of the official Stanford Barack Obama Facebook group.

Fitzgerald and Parker both told me that, beyond joining the Facebook group, they have not done any campaigning for Obama. Both acknowledged that their group membership could be interpreted as suggesting a conflict of interest but stood by their reporting as fair and unbiased. I’m not at all questioning the quality of their articles, which certainly seemed balanced and fair. But a public display of support for a presidential candidate gives the appearance of a conflict of interest that is best avoided.

In both of these cases, the crucial distinction is between journalists’ private beliefs and their public stances. It’s inevitable that engaged, intelligent journalists will develop their own personal views on the issues they cover, but it’s their job to compartmentalize and keep these biases from their writing. To the extent possible, however, it’s best if journalists avoid writing on issues where they have strong personal views. In particular, if a journalist feels strongly enough to make public statements of their own political views on the topic, it’s hard for readers not to question whether their news stories are impartial.

Thus, it’s generally considered acceptable for journalists to vote privately in elections. The New York Times’ very stringent ethics manual, for example, acknowledges journalists’ right to be “responsible citizens” and “to take part in community affairs.” But any public display of political action, according to the Times’ policy, such as signing petitions or campaigning, is inappropriate for someone covering political issues.

This raises an interesting dilemma for Daily writers as ASSU elections come around. Certainly, it’s appropriate for writers and editors to vote in the elections, and it’s inappropriate for writers and editors to publicly campaign for or support candidates or student groups on whom they might report. (This would include, I think, joining Facebook groups of support or forwarding along campaign emails.) But what about signing ASSU petitions? Is this like a private vote, or is it a public display of support? According to elections commissioner Ryan Woessner, signatories of petitions are private this year, though they were public in the past when they were on paper and in the future may be public as well. So for this year at least, it is perhaps alright for journalists to sign ASSU petitions — though whenever there is an ambiguity, it’s best for journalists to err on the side of avoiding any appearance of partiality.

Currently, The Daily puts almost all of the burden of trust on the writers. It’s up to writers to reveal any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a story assignment. I think that a more proactive approach is desirable.

It would be hard for The Daily to police against mendacious writers who knowingly try to write news stories where they have serious conflicts of interest. But most of these situations, I imagine, are accidental, and the writer might not even realize that there’s a potential conflict of interest. One solution would be to ask every Daily news writer to give a list of topics where they might have a conflict of interest — public campus figures whom they know well personally (e.g., ASSU candidates), student groups in which they’re involved, political stances they’ve made public in publications or on Facebook. Then, before assigning an article to writers, editors could ask explicitly if there was any potential conflict of interest. Simply the act of writing down areas where they may have conflicts might be a good exercise for writers and might make them aware of potential conflicts they hadn’t previously realized.

It’s natural for people to overestimate their ability to remain impartial. Even when they can remain impartial, the mere appearance of partiality is damaging. It’s thus best to err on the side of caution and to have institutional safeguards in place to prevent well-intentioned writers from creating the appearance of conflicts of interest.

Rafe Kinsey is the public editor of The Daily, serving as an independent critic of the paper and as a representative for the readers. Please send comments and suggestions to publiceditor@daily.stanford.edu.