Advocacy journalism

Careless also criticized the "mainstream media" for unbalanced and politically biased coverage, for economic conflicts of interest, and for neglecting certain public causes. She said that alternative publications have advantages in independence, focus, and access which make them more effective public-interest advocates than the mainstream media.

History

The Crisis, the official magazine of the NAACP, was founded in 1910. It describes itself as inheriting the tradition of advocacy journalism from Freedom's Journal'', [1], which began in 1827 as "the first African-American owned and operated newspaper published in the United States."[1]

Muckrakers are often claimed as the professional ancestors of modern advocacy journalists: Nellie Bly, Ida M. Tarbell, Lincoln Steffens, Upton Sinclair, George Seldes, I.F. Stone.

Objectivity

Main article: Objectivity (journalism)

Advocacy journalists may reject the principle of objectivity in their work for several different reasons.

Many believe that there is no such thing as objective reporting, that there will always be some form of implicit bias, whether political, personal, or metaphysical, and whether intentional or subconscious. This is not necessarily a rejection of the existence of an objective reality, merely a statement about our inability to report on it in a value-free fashion. This may sound like a radical idea, but many mainstream journalists accept the philosophical idea that pure "objectivity" is impossible, but still seek to minimize bias in their work. Other journalistic standards, such as balance, and neutrality, may be used to describe a more practical kind of "objectivity".

"Alternative" critics often charge that the mainstream's media claims of being "bias free" are a harmful because they paper over inevitable (often subconscious) biases, or that they have the effect of advancing certain political ideas which are disguised in an "objective" viewpoint. Critics may contend that the mainstream media reinforce majority-held ideas, marginalizing dissent and harming the larger political and cultural discourse debate and diversity.

The proposed solution is to make biases explicit, with the intention of promoting transparency and self-awareness that better serves media consumers. Advocacy journalists often assume that their audiences will share their biases (especially in politically charged alternative media), or will at least be conscious of them while evaluating what are supposed to be well-researched and persuasive facts.

Some who believe that objective (or balanced, neutral, etc.) reporting is possible, or that it is a laudable goal, do not find that striving for objectivity is always appropriate goal, perhaps depending on the publication and the purpose at hand. For example, it might be argued that when attempting to expose a waste, corruption, or abuse, a neutral position would "get in the way" of the exposition, and a "bias" against this kind of criminal activity would be quite acceptable to the intended audience.

Many advocacy journalists claim that they can reject objectivity while holding on to the goals of fairness and accuracy, and claim that corporate journalists often lack both; thus the critical media reform group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.

Investigative reporting

Investigative journalism and muckraking might be considered forms of advocacy journalism. Investigative reports often focus on illegal or unethical activity, or aim to advance a generally accepted public interest, such as government accountability, alleviation of human suffering, etc. It might be argued that the journalist is assuming a point of view that public action is warranted to change the situation being described.

Advocacy journalism as bad journalism

Many professional journalists and many readers find otherwise standards-adhering and well-researched news and documentary work that dispenses with the notion of journalistic objectivity to be "bad journalism", to be a type of "editorializing" (a serious breach of journalistic protocol), or not to be journalism at all (because it does not follow the standards accepted among mainstream journalists).

Some fear that the activity of self-described advocacy journalists to be harmful to the reputation of the mainstream press as an objective, reliable source for information. Another concern is that undiscriminating readers will accept the facts and opinions advanced in advocacy pieces as if they were objective and representative, becoming unknowingly and perhaps dangerously misinformed as a result.

Advocacy journalists vary in their response to these criticisms. Some believe that mainstream and "alternative" outlets serve different purposes, and sometimes different audiences entirely, and that the difference is readily apparent to the public. Many believe that the mainstream press is not an objective and reliable source of information, and so doesn't deserve the reputation it seeks to maintain.

See also

External links

Groups

History

• "Cornel West: The Uses of Advocacy Journalism". The Tavis Smiley Show, 15 Dec 2004. "Commentator Cornel West and NPR's Tavis Smiley discuss the notion of advocacy journalism in America, in the tradition of W.E.B. Dubois, I. F. Stone and Ida B. Wells." [1] RealAudio or Windows Media audio program.

• "A Brief History of American Alternative Journalism in the Twentieth Century." By Randolph T. Holhut. [1]

  Criticism of advocacy journalism

• "Critical scan reveals that advocacy journalism is rampant" by Charles W. Moore. The New Brunswick Telegraph Journal 2004.06.29 [1]. This article criticizes the mainstream Canadian press for engaging in "advocacy journalism" on behalf of liberal causes.

• "The sorry state of American journalism" by Dennis Campbell. October 7, 2003. [1] Criticizes "advocacy journalism" of all political stripes as "opinion disguised as news" and "propagandizing". Identifies "advocacy journalism" as a post-Watergate phenomenon.
  

  References