Should journalists say and write what they think? Recent controversies have given new urgency to old questions about journalists’ professional ethics and political role in democracy.
An ongoing defamation lawsuit has exposed how — and how often — Fox News anchors lied to their viewers about claims that the 2020 US presidential election was “stolen” from then-US president Donald Trump.
The BBC suspended former soccer striker Gary Lineker for criticizing the British government’s refugee policies, allegedly in contravention of the broadcaster’s traditional commitment to impartiality.
Illustration: Constance Chou
Journalists everywhere are debating whether taking a political position crosses some dangerous line into “activism.”
Yet the conventional distinction between “journalist” and “activist” is badly conceived, because there has never been anything passive about journalists’ role. At a time when autocrats are consolidating power by attacking “the media” (or dismissing all critical reporting as “fake news”), those who refuse to call out such behavior are effectively tolerating rising authoritarianism. There is nothing neutral about their silence.
As many media critics have rightly pointed out, the traditional practice of mechanically reproducing “both sides” of a political dispute often distorts reality.
Hence, a 2014 headline in The Atlantic warned: “Yes, polarization is asymmetric — and conservatives are worse.”
Since then, the Republican Party has become fully Trumpified and turned against democracy itself. Portraying such an asymmetrical situation as symmetrical creates the appearance of traditional journalistic objectivity at the expense of truth.
Media critic Jay Rosen said that “both-sidesism” is driven not so much by a professional ethics of objectivity as by a journalist’s pre-emptive effort to avoid accusations of “partisanship.” It is more about “refuge-seeking” than “truth-seeking,” covered by a veneer of immaculate neutrality.
Conversely, a journalist who becomes a self-styled member of the democratic “resistance” can lose credibility if such resistance translates into a particular position on issues such as the proper size of unemployment benefits, which, while important, are hardly at the core of democracy as such.
As democracies will always have a host of legitimate disagreements to navigate, investing every story with an agenda — be it progressive or conservative — does more than lead to slanted reporting. It also implies contempt for one’s fellow citizens, who apparently cannot be trusted to make up their own minds. There is no shortage of handwringing about the public’s declining “trust in the media,” but this relationship goes both ways.
Rather than framing the issue as “journalism versus activism,” a more useful distinction is that between reporting and advocacy (which is not the same as “opinion journalism” offered by figures who routinely comment on all kinds of issues).
Both practices have to rely on facts, and both ask their audiences to keep an open mind. While reporters’ primary emphasis is on informing, advocates focus on reforming, but that goal need not bar them from doing investigative work — on the contrary, it is often what gives such work its force.
Critics of advocacy portray it as an alternative to faithful reportage of facts without bias, but a good advocate will of course pursue what US journalist Carl Bernstein famously called the “best obtainable version of the truth.”
One need only look to journalist Ida Wells, who repeatedly risked her life to report meticulously on lynching in the southern US. Careful, accurate reporting was the very basis for her campaigning, not somehow its opposite.
What distinguishes advocacy from reporting is that it goes beyond presenting the facts by building a community of followers. Maintaining continuous communication for and about a cause has always been the best way to create and mobilize support for it. As long as the process is out in the open, there need not be any clash with professional ethics.
The crux of the Fox News scandal is not that it showed Fox to be openly partisan, it is that the network’s “stars” and producers knew that claims of a “stolen” election were false and chose to amplify them anyway.
Ratings and profits came before facts. This ordering of priorities was made manifest at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. While Fox’s on-screen personalities were clamoring for “freedom” and “opening the economy,” Fox’s offices remained closed and its employees were asked to work from home.
Professional news organizations (a category that obviously does not include Fox) can have advocates and reporters. What matters is that a news organization’s audience can assess what it is about — how it makes editorial choices and how it makes money. These criteria are easier to meet if media organizations have public editors who engage with audience concerns seriously, thereby increasing trustworthiness.
To be sure, as Harvard University professor Pippa Norris said, trust is not a good in itself.
Plenty of people trusted online quacks and COVID-19 deniers during the pandemic, and some people are still reaching for patently unsuitable medications such as Ivermectin because Trump and then-Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro endorsed it as a “cure.”
What a democracy needs from its citizens is what Norris calls skeptical trust, based on evidence of institutions’ competence and integrity, not cynical mistrust or credulity.
By engaging with audiences and being transparent about advocacy and reporting, media organizations can increase trust by proving their own trustworthiness. Reporters and advocates — alongside columnists and freelancers such as Lineker — must be objective, which is to say they must strive for accuracy.
However, supporting a cause and building a community for it is not the same thing as “bias.”
When protections for free speech and the media are under relentless assault from autocrats, the virtue of impartiality can become a vice.
Jan-Werner Mueller is a politics professor at Princeton University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A series of strong earthquakes in Hualien County not only caused severe damage in Taiwan, but also revealed that China’s power has permeated everywhere. A Taiwanese woman posted on the Internet that she found clips of the earthquake — which were recorded by the security camera in her home — on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu. It is spine-chilling that the problem might be because the security camera was manufactured in China. China has widely collected information, infringed upon public privacy and raised information security threats through various social media platforms, as well as telecommunication and security equipment. Several former TikTok employees revealed
The bird flu outbreak at US dairy farms keeps finding alarming new ways to surprise scientists. Last week, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) confirmed that H5N1 is spreading not just from birds to herds, but among cows. Meanwhile, media reports say that an unknown number of cows are asymptomatic. Although the risk to humans is still low, it is clear that far more work needs to be done to get a handle on the reach of the virus and how it is being transmitted. That would require the USDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to get
For the incoming Administration of President-elect William Lai (賴清德), successfully deterring a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attack or invasion of democratic Taiwan over his four-year term would be a clear victory. But it could also be a curse, because during those four years the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will grow far stronger. As such, increased vigilance in Washington and Taipei will be needed to ensure that already multiplying CCP threat trends don’t overwhelm Taiwan, the United States, and their democratic allies. One CCP attempt to overwhelm was announced on April 19, 2024, namely that the PLA had erred in combining major missions
On April 11, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida delivered a speech at a joint meeting of the US Congress in Washington, in which he said that “China’s current external stance and military actions present an unprecedented and the greatest strategic challenge … to the peace and stability of the international community.” Kishida emphasized Japan’s role as “the US’ closest ally.” “The international order that the US worked for generations to build is facing new challenges,” Kishida said. “I understand it is a heavy burden to carry such hopes on your shoulders,” he said. “Japan is already standing shoulder to shoulder