Journalists: those rarefied and indispensable members of society that seem to so gallantly shoulder the demands of the people while simultaneously angering onlookers in droves.
The fine line that sits snugly between objectivity and advocacy is one that has been tiptoed by the best and brightest journalists—of both the partisan and the impartial schools of thought—for generations.
Undoubtedly this will continue as a point of controversy for generations to come. And yet there remains a point when and where a journalist must answer to their own humanity and forego that sacred dedication to impartiality.
Like our favorite childhood summer, the days of neutrality have come and gone. This means that a journalist must take excessive care in the things they say and the nuance with which they say it. It is a challenge—but someone has to do it.
Fulfilling the duties of a journalist must indeed happen while playing the role of a responsible citizen. This hopefully takes place regardless of whether one attempts to do so or not; for before we are journalists, we are people first.
This should demand that we stand for justice even if it means opting for one side of an argument over another. While this approach begets the possibility of clouding journalistic independence and fair practice, there should nonetheless be a precedence of choosing humanity over objectivity, a bias to choose justice over a marriage to mere recounting.
I do not posit that explicit advocacy, however, is the role journalists should aspire to.
In some cases, potentially (remember the Pentagon Papers?). But it is possible to report a story, provide analysis that favors the just, and take an unambiguous position without necessarily filling the role of advocate or even “social justice warrior.”
A journalist can indeed do this, and should be committed to doing as much. But for a journalist to provide blatant advocacy only draws the critical words of the unsatisfied viewer.
“Wisdom journalism”—the term so aptly coined in Beyond News: The Future of Journalism—leaves room for guidance without advocacy and intelligence without impartiality.
One way this can happen is if a journalist reports a story while also stating that, for example, within the story is a right and wrong, a good and evil. This is distinct from advocacy.
Advocacy does, at least in my mind, overstep the boundaries of good journalism in a manner that forces the journalist to explicitly join the fight rather than report and analyze wisely.
Providing analysis that parses through murky waters and imparts a guiding light for the public should be the aim of a modern journalist, though disseminating wisdom can occur without wearing the hat of an advocate.
The task is Sisyphean surely—but someone has to do it.
I think there comes a time when society is so far off track that a journalist needs to present the “facts” as well as help people interpret them in the light of true justice. Still the facts if we really have all of them speak volumes. Solzhenitsyn who I’ve mentioned before in my previous comments talked in great depth about the responsibility of the writer to society in his Nobel lecture. He writes how “it is possible to compose an outwardly smooth and elegant political speech, a headstrong article, a social program, or a philosophical system on the basis of both a mistake and a lie. What is hidden, what distorted, will not immediately become obvious…..but conceptions which are devised or stretched do not stand being portrayed in images, they all come crashing down, appear sickly and pale, convince no one.” I think more then anything we need journalists who get close enough and even personally wounded by the things they are reporting on and have the ability to use words to take us where they have been. It seems that impartiality requires a certain amount of distance which I think prevents one from getting to the truth. Bringing hidden things fully into the light is so important before people become comfortable with the edges of them. Ex. in Nazi Germany a lot of people insisted that they thought the handicapped and Gypsies and Jewish people were only being sent to work camps. Why they were even okay with this should have been challenged by writers with conscience. Evil never acts openly and so journalists need to make sure they aren’t reporting on the tip of the iceberg and therefore misleading society without even knowing it. In my own personal experience there is so much that people have become comfortable with in the area of autism that is not acceptable yet even so much that is hidden that is completely inhumane. Who knows it but those of us who live it and ask uncomfortable questions that make us unpopular. So much to ponder in the articles you’ve posted. 🙂
WOW — what an amazing, thought provoking comment you have posed here. Thank you so much for opening up this line of thought. I am a big fan of Gulag Archipelago, so when you bring up Solzhenitsyn I tend to side with you right away. Great great points here. Your comment alone could have been a blog post!
I am an advocate of journalism as opposed to being referred to as a reporter. In my opinion, a reporter is a reporter of fact, and if I call myself an independent journalist, I can insert my often unwanted opinions into everything, which I do! FYI, saw your bio, I graduated from SDSU many many many years ago. Thanks for the follow!
Agree wholeheartedly!! — And always great to connect with a fellow Aztec!