Like It or Not, Journalists are Activists
I remember when a bunch of mainstream reporters felt so threatened by high school editor Rebecca Schneid, who dared say that journalism is a form of activism after her and her staff covered the Parkland shooting, that they practically lit a pyre at her feet and shouted, “Witch!”
One pitch forker was National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar, who said of Schneid’s proclamation, “It’s this mentality that’s killing trust in our profession” But Kraushaar’s view doesn’t take into account who historically has defined “objectivity” in newsrooms and journalism schools. Unsurprisingly, Lewis Wallace's book " The View from Somewhere" found that white men wrote “objectivity” into journalism school curricula during the 20th century as immigrants flooded the streets and women got the right to vote.
More recently, in a Nieman Reports article, Wallace defended Schneid’s argument, saying that objectivity is often “… used to keep out journalists whose interests were different than the owners of the paper.” And this is exactly the point that critics like Kraushaar oversimplify when they pick up the “objectivity” pitchforks.
Who is defining “objectivity,” and why does being objective mean you aren’t an activist? Does objectivity mean reporters can’t openly say they believe everyone is entitled to basic human rights regardless of sex, gender, race or ethnicity? Does it mean regurgitating everything a now-ex-president says about Mexican immigrants to the U.S. even though his “facts” have been proven false and by constantly repeating these “false facts” you’re actively harming groups who are already victims of said ex-president’s propagandistic messaging?
Journalists have carried the “objectivity trumps all” cross for decades, but at what point does the media “accidently” act as activists for governmental propaganda simply because of their role in agenda-setting within the public discourse? Even my niece and nephew can tell you that with great power comes great responsibility. So, as the public is increasingly accusing media organizations of being “fake news,” it’s more important than ever that journalists recognize their role as agenda setters and unpack what they’re advocating for every time they decide something is or is not worth covering.
Journalists are inherently advocating for something every time they put proverbial pen to paper. A journalist or network decides that a topic, event or person is newsworthy, and this process inherently involves passing judgment onto that topic. Calling this activism doesn’t mean journalists get a free pass when it comes to interviewing sources with different perspectives on an issue, such as getting multiple and often times differing thoughts on a new stimulus bill. But nor does it mean that it’s appropriate to fall for false equivalency by giving stock to conspiracy theories and racist ideology that hurt readers instead of providing the context necessary for readers to make informed, enlightened decisions.
It’s also worth pointing out that journalists do indeed have a history of advocating for racist, sexist policies by being complicit in how they represented criminals in the news, even if they did so inadvertently. Ever since “The War of Drugs,” violent criminals and drug addicts in the news have largely been synonymous with Black faces. By disproportionally showing Black mugs, the news advocated for this narrative.
The same thing happened when in 2008, media repeatedly asked Sarah Palin if she is competent enough to run for office because she has children, even though Barack Obama also had children while running for president that same year, and in fact, his children were younger than Palin’s. Whether the journalists meant to or not, the semantic differential they used advocated for gendered, patriarchal stereotypes about a woman’s role in childrearing.
Journalism should be about advocating for the truth, not worrying about being "objective" as historically and overwhelmingly defined by white males who feel threatened by any news coverage that calls out their own bigotry, sexism or racism. Journalists are always advocating for something simply though the act of agenda setting and passing judgment on what is worth covering and what questions are worth asking.
So, the next time you hear a journalist yearn for the days when objectivity trumped activism in journalism, go ahead and ask them if they mean the same “objectivity” that for decades journalists used as an excuse to reinforce gendered, racist stereotypes and to protect those who have historically benefited from othering groups that don’t consist almost exclusively of white males. I’m confident you’ll find that their activism for “objectivity” is often just a shield used to fight against any other form of journalistic activism that threatens traditional power structures both in society and the newsroom itself.
This opinion was originally published for a Medill course in March 2021.
