Journalism Between Activism and Advocacy

Can journalism coexist with activism and advocacy without compromising on the ethics of objectivity?

Most reporters would laugh at the absurdity of the question, as they deem true journalism incompatible with activism. However, as the world shifts, the lines between the two blur, making the initially theoretical question an important point of discussion.

If journalism were to be personified, it would be a circus performer, walking on a thin tightrope, in heels. To the right of the fraying rope lies advocacy, to the left, activism. As journalism treads on this unstable line, the spectators demand a declaration of its allegiance, while all that awaits below is the risk of losing credibility.

But what exactly does this mean?

Journalism is described as "the collection, preparation, and distribution of news and related commentary and feature materials through print and electronic media" by the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Journalism closely adheres to the core principles of truth and accuracy, fairness and impartiality, independence, humanity, and accountability.

Journalism has to be objective. Journalism has to be neutral. Activism doesn’t.

The Cambridge dictionary defines activism as, “The use of direct and noticeable action to achieve a result, usually a political or social one.” Activists do not aim to reflect alternative viewpoints; they aim to mobilise a like-minded audience to bring about desired change. When journalists become emotionally or politically invested, they compromise their ability to remain impartial. The principle of objectivity, if entirely abandoned, would make journalism indistinguishable from public relations and marketing.

Advocacy, however, occupies a more ambiguous space. At its core, advocacy pertains to pleading another's cause or arguing in support of an idea, event, or person. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines it as 'verbal support or argument for a cause, policy, etc.’ Advocacy operates through persuasion, whereas activism prefers direct action.

But what happens to these distinctions when human rights and areas of public interest are concerned? When reporting sensitive subjects that push a journalist's professional boundaries, is it really possible for them to maintain objectivity and impartiality? Is it feasible to accept "both sides" of an argument with a white supremacist, someone who has morally repugnant and unscientific beliefs about what it means to be human? However, the media risks becoming propaganda megaphones for the powerful when neutrality is completely abandoned.

It is crucial to note that due to journalism’s selective nature, advocacy can surface in subtler ways, causing some voices and issues to be promoted or ignored more aggressively than others. Journalists, much like all individuals, carry preconceptions influenced by their social, political, and cultural backgrounds. These assumptions along with factors, including the media’s profits, difficulties in filtering out personal values or bias, and the rise of the digital revolution, heavily affect objectivity and credibility.

With the progression of the digital revolution, the concept of objectivity has gradually faded. Journalists utilise objectivity as a tool only when it results in profits. When being more sensational and taking sides will bring them more viewers, they opt to disregard guiding principles. If the ultimate purpose of journalism is anything other than the pursuit of truth, the role of the media risks changing from informative to propagandistic.

There is reasonable concern that activism will corrupt the core values of journalism. The problem rests not in journalists caring for causes but in the rejection of ethical standards. Journalism is inherently linked to advocating for truth and public interest, but it must ensure that this advocacy does not harden into the perpetuation of a single point of view or fall into extreme activism.