Journalists Can Be Activists Too

Objectivity is a lie. As a undergraduate journalist, I started my pursuit of this career learning about traditional journalism and the SPJ code of ethics. My professors would constantly emphasize the importance of being objective when it comes to covering a story. We could show no bias and had to represent both sides of an issue. I never understood why it was so important and in the beginning, I had some difficulty writing stories because I wanted to get to the core of an issue, but it would sound like I was asserting my opinion.

After reading The New York Times article by David Carr, I have come to realize journalists really should be activists, if they choose to dive deeper into issues that plague our society. One quote in the article that really made an impact on me said this:

In that context, “activist” has become a code word for someone who is driven by an agenda beyond seeking information on the public’s behalf. -David Carr

If going beyond in seeking out information for the public is being considered an "activist," I don't see why that is a bad thing. I think in the current political climate we're in, journalists are becoming cowardly. We can see that in how they covered the 2016 election, and how they continue to cover issues of white nationalism/supremacy, race, sexism, treatment of marginalized groups, and more. The mainstream media is following the traditional journalism methods of covering "both sides," but this doesn't get to the main issue the audience should be exposed to. This quote from the article sums up the this flaw of mainstream media.

“'Truth is not the hole in the middle of the doughnut, it is on the doughnut somewhere,'” a veteran reporter whom I worked with at an alternative weekly in Minneapolis once told me. What he meant was that articles that strive only to be in the middle — moving from one hand to the other in an effort to be nicely balanced — end up going nowhere."