Journalism is often referred to as “the fourth estate”, and is seen as being crucial to the functioning of a healthy and fair society.

In democracies, the role of the journalist is suppose to be to inform the public debate so that the audience can make educated choices.

The role of politicians is supposed to be to represent those who elected them, and to ensure that the concerns of that electorate are listened to, considered, and, where appropriate, acted upon.

In such a political system, the journalist should act on behalf of the audience to ensure that politicians do their job.

The journalist should be exploring and covering the issues that most concern their readers and listeners.

In doing so they should include a diversity of voices and political opinions in order to offer the richest and most complete coverage possible.

If they achieve that, they are more likely to offer journalism that enhances understanding and encourages dialogue and debate.

The fourth estate (that’s us)

Journalism is sometimes referred to as “the fourth estate”, and is seen by some as being crucial to the functioning of a healthy and fair society.

Thomas Jefferson, the main author of the US Declaration of Independence, and the country’s third president, once remarked, “were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter”.

Perhaps Jefferson was right in suggesting that journalists are more important to society than politicians. Perhaps, in some societies, the politicians know and fear that.

What is clear is that the relationship between journalists and politicians can have a significant impact on the functioning of a fair and just society.

Politicians make decisions and take action on behalf of the public. Journalists scrutinise those decisions and report the implications to the public.

Journalistic types – which are you?

To understand the relationship between the media and politics, it’s important to look at the various dynamics that can exist between a journalist and a politician.

Here are a few that come to mind:

1. The hunter: Tracks politicians down relentlessly. Follows any trail. This journalist never gives up until they have their prey. They are driven and won’t believe the politician, even when the politician is telling the truth. The hunter journalist can often lack perspective and objectivity. Their contribution to enhancing the understanding of the audience is questionable.
2. The activist: Committed to a cause and will fight any politician who is against that cause while supporting any politician who backs the cause. This journalist can be blinkered and one-dimensional. They find it hard to be objective because they realise that offering another perspective may weaken the angle they wish to push. The activist journalist enjoys being seen as the martyr and often risks becoming the story rather than covering the story. The question has to be asked, can an activist be a journalist and can a journalist be an activist – highly unlikely.
3. The buddy: Becomes a close friend to the politician and rarely questions their position, often taking the stance that the politician is right regardless of any evidence to the contrary. This journalist will do the politician a favour, but will have limits – usually when they think they will be found out. However they will always be ready to lend a hand when needed if they feel that their coverage might benefit the politician and themselves. The buddy journalist is easily manipulated.
4. The possession: Owned by the politician through compromise and over-familiarity. They probably lost their journalistic integrity at an early age. Likely to publish anything the politician wants with no questions asked. This journalist is little more than an unpaid member of the politician’s public relations team. They enjoy name-dropping and being seen as connected to the influential.
5. The party member: Does his or her best to hide their allegiance, but can’t help it showing through in their tone, story choice and their ability (or inability) to ask the searching question. The party member journalist will spend a lot of time rubbishing the political opinions of those with whom they disagree. They can be spotted by their enthusiasm for a story that other, less-compromised, journalists fail to see. They will defend that story choice against all logical reasoning.
6. The comfortable: The “I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine” journalist. Their view is why fight when you can both have a profitable and easy life? Who will know? This journalist sees their job as a 9 to 5 chore that serves only to provide the means to exist. Usually enjoys fine wine and good food. Is available to all parties to woo. The comfortable journalist sees this as being fair, impartial and objective.
7. The constructive journalist: Manipulated by those who fear probing, rigorous and sceptical journalism. Pressured into self-censorship due to senior and peer-group pressure to take a positive view of news. This could lead to the “constructive journalist” becoming little more than a public relations machine having been stripped of their role in scrutinising, questioning, and holding the powerful to account. The constructive journalist allows those with something to hide to keep their secrets and becomes a messenger for those who are setting the ‘constructive’ and ‘positive’ news agendas.
8. The true journalist: Free from party ties, has integrity and can’t be bought, is passionate about informing the public debate, seeks the truth, reports objectively and fairly, and includes multiple perspectives even including those they dislike. Is prepared to investigate all they hold dear. Sees nobody as being beyond reproach and is realistic about human nature. The true journalist seeks the truth.

The post Journalists and politicians first appeared on Media Helping Media.

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.

The post Journalism and activism first appeared on Media Helping Media.