Journalism and activism

Can a journalist also be an activist for a cause without compromising the core editorial values of journalism?

I began thinking about this after being invited to contribute a chapter for a handbook for journalists living in exile. In the email, the reason for inviting me to write a chapter was expressed as follows, “because you are an experienced journalist and a media activist.”

If journalism is meant to be objective, impartial and fair, then surely a journalist can’t be an activist?

But what if that journalist campaigns for freedom of expression, can that be achieved without compromising the editorial ethics listed above? And what about journalists reporting on environmental issues such as climate change?

I have never thought of myself as a media activist. In fact I have always thought of activism as being incompatible with true journalism and I have always considered an activist to be someone who pushes a cause without aiming to reflect an alternative view point. If that is the case, and if an activist makes no attempt to remain objective and impartial, how can they also be a journalist?

Journalists must always aim to be removed from the issues they are covering. They must avoid becoming emotionally and politically involved, because once they do they are likely to lose their objectivity. But what about journalists specialising in areas that have strong public interest such as:

• Human rights and freedom of expression
• The environment and climate change
• Health, disease, pandemics, medicine.

I have been working with journalists in transition and post-conflict countries, and countries where freedom of expression is under threat for more than 20 years. In all cases, I have been trying to help them establish strong, independent, and ethically focused newsrooms. In those conditions, I can see the term activism being used in a different way by those who don’t enjoy the levels of freedom of expression that we enjoy in the West.

Perhaps the phrase media activist reflects the realities of what journalists in the majority world face day to day.

I come from a society where journalists are taken out and wined and dined by the powerful and influential, whereas many journalists in the majority world are simply taken out with bullets and bombs.

In that atmosphere it is understandable to come across journalists who view themselves as activists.

However, if a journalist’s role is to seek out truth, reflect the voices and opinions of those who don’t usually have a say, and to represent the whole audience regardless of race, religion, political affiliation and social status, then perhaps a journalist is, essentially, an activist for freedom of expression.

One dictionary definition of journalism is ‘the profession of writing for newspapers, magazines, radio, TV and online’. However, I would argue that journalism, without clearly-defined journalistic ethics, can easily deteriorate into public relations (PR) and marketing.

Journalism has to be accurate. It is all about clear, irrefutable facts that are tested and well set out. Journalism also needs to be well-sourced. All evidence must be checked and verified. All elements of the story need to be thoroughly tested to ensure that they are not misleading and that they don’t magnify one side at the expense of another.

We should use clear, precise wording to tell the story and avoid comment and opinion that could add confusion. We need to be open about what we know, what we think we know and what we don’t know.

Journalism needs to be impartial, objective, and fair. We need to remain open-minded and reflect all significant opinions as we explore a wide range of disparate views.

If we decide not to use some views, we need to be clear why. We need to ask ourselves why we are omitting some information or views and including others.

What impact does that have on the piece? Does it help clarify issues, or does it confuse? If it confuses, what could be the consequences of that confusion and who is likely to gain?

• We need to be honest with ourselves about our motives and reasons for covering a story.
• We need to understand any unconscious bias that lurks beneath our journalism.
• We need to ask searching questions.
• We need to talk to all sides, particularly those who hold public office.
• And, in doing so, we need to provide the basis for a healthy and robust public debate.

All journalists will have their own political points of view, but these must never creep into our journalism, and they must not have any bearing on the choice of stories we cover or the way we cover them.

Perhaps this is where the real meaning of the word activism becomes relevant. When all these conditions have been met, a journalist will have served as an activist for freedom of expression, human rights, or protecting the environment.

However, as far as using journalism to fight for a particular cause, that is a difficult one. In those cases the journalist probably needs to accept that they have crossed a line in the same way that a journalist who moves into public relations (PR) does. Once crossed they are using their skills for a different purpose. They are no longer aiming to reflect all significant strands of opinion but, rather, they have chosen to focus on one and make that their editorial priority.

It’s important to explore the tension between journalistic objectivity and activism, particularly in contexts where fundamental freedoms are at stake.

The traditional view: Objectivity vs. activism

The traditional view posits that journalism and activism are fundamentally incompatible. Journalism, at its core, is rooted in:

• Objectivity: Striving to present facts without personal bias.
• Impartiality: Giving fair representation to all sides of a story.
• Accuracy: Ensuring factual correctness and verification.

Activism, conversely, is driven by advocacy for a specific cause, often involving:

• Taking a clear stance.
• Promoting a particular viewpoint.
• Seeking to influence public opinion and policy.

From this perspective, a journalist who engages in activism risks compromising their credibility and the public’s trust.

The reality: Nuances and grey areas

However, the reality is far more nuanced. Several factors blur the lines:

• Fundamental rights: Reporting on human rights abuses, freedom of expression violations, or environmental destruction often necessitates exposing injustice. In such cases, the pursuit of truth inherently aligns with advocacy for basic rights.
• Contextual differences: Journalists in repressive regimes often face existential threats. In these contexts, simply reporting the truth can be an act of defiance and a form of activism. The lines between journalist and activist become blurred out of necessity.
• “Activism” as a defence of journalistic values: One can argue that upholding journalistic ethics – accuracy, fairness, and impartiality – is itself a form of activism, especially in an era of misinformation and propaganda.
• Specialised reporting: Journalists specialising in areas such as environmental science or public health often possess deep expertise. This expertise can lead to a strong sense of responsibility to inform the public about critical issues, which may involve advocating for evidence-based solutions.

The challenge of maintaining credibility

The challenge lies in maintaining credibility while engaging in advocacy. Here are some considerations:

• Transparency: Journalists should be transparent about their potential biases and any affiliations that could influence their reporting.
• Rigorous fact-checking: Even when advocating for a cause, journalists must adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and verification.
• Fair representation: While advocating for a particular viewpoint, journalists should strive to acknowledge and address opposing arguments, even if they disagree with them.
• Distinguishing between reporting and opinion: Clearly separating factual reporting from opinion or commentary is crucial.
• Acknowledging limitations: Journalists should be clear about what they know, what they don’t know, and any uncertainties surrounding the information they present.

The role of context

The context in which a journalist operates significantly influences the relationship between journalism and activism.

• Western democracies: In societies with strong press freedoms, journalists can generally maintain a clear separation between reporting and advocacy.
• Authoritarian regimes: In countries where freedom of the press is suppressed, journalists may be forced to become activists simply to survive and report the truth.
• Conflict zones: Journalists covering wars and humanitarian crises often witness atrocities that demand a response. In these situations, the line between reporting and advocacy can become blurred.

Journalism as activism for truth

Ultimately, perhaps the most profound form of journalistic activism is the relentless pursuit of truth. By holding power accountable, amplifying marginalised voices, and exposing injustice, journalists can act as powerful agents of change.

In summary:

• There is a traditional and valid concern that activism will corrupt the core values of journalism.
• Context and the subject matter that is being reported on, can make the lines between activism and journalism become blurred.
• Journalists can be activists for the truth, and for the values of good journalism.
• Transparency is key to the journalist maintaining their credibility.

Questions and Answers

1. Question: According to the traditional view, what are the core principles of journalism that are considered incompatible with activism?
   • Answer: The traditional view emphasises objectivity, impartiality, and accuracy as core principles of journalism, which are seen as conflicting with the advocacy-driven nature of activism.
2. Question: In what types of contexts might the lines between journalism and activism become blurred?
   • Answer: The lines become blurred in contexts such as reporting on fundamental rights violations, operating in repressive regimes, and covering conflict zones.
3. Question: What is meant by “activism” as a defence of journalistic values?
   • Answer: It refers to the idea that upholding journalistic ethics – accuracy, fairness, and impartiality – can be seen as a form of activism, particularly in combating misinformation.
4. Question: What is the primary challenge journalists face when engaging in advocacy?
   • Answer: The primary challenge is maintaining credibility while advocating for a cause.
5. Question: What role does transparency play in maintaining credibility for a journalist who engages in advocacy?
   • Answer: Transparency involves being open about potential biases and affiliations that could influence reporting, which helps maintain credibility.
6. Question: How does the context of “Western democracies” influence the relationship between journalism and activism?
   • Answer: In Western democracies, there is typically a clearer separation between reporting and advocacy due to strong press freedoms.
7. Question: How does the context of “authoritarian regimes” influence the relationship between journalism and activism?
   • Answer: In authoritarian regimes, journalists may be forced into activism simply to report the truth and survive.
8. Question: What is meant by the phrase “Journalism as activism for truth”?
   • Answer: It refers to the idea that the pursuit of truth, holding power accountable, and amplifying marginalised voices are forms of activism inherent in good journalism.
9. Question: What is the risk that a journalist takes when they decide to fight for a specific cause?
   • Answer: The journalist risks crossing a line that separates journalism from advocacy, similar to when a journalist enters public relations, where they prioritise one viewpoint.
10. Question: What is the importance of a journalist to separate reporting from opinion?
    • Answer: Separating reporting from opinion is important to maintain credibility, and to allow the public to decipher the facts of a situation, from the opinion of the journalist.