On Journalism & Objectivity

A Sunday Morning Read on the role of Journalism in 2024

The Daily Northwestern reported on a speech given by a Medill Professor¹, Steven Thrasher at the Gaza protests on the Deering Meadow. The Daily writes,

A central focus of Thrasher’s remarks were regarding the state of the journalism industry, particularly regarding their coverage of Israel’s ground and air offensive in Gaza. He directed some of his remakes to those who may enter the industry. 

“To the Medill students and journalists within earshot, I say to you: Our work is not about objectivity,” he said. “Our work is about you putting your brilliant minds to work and opening your compassionate hearts.”

I want to talk briefly about the line between journalism and activism because I have learned a lot running this operation. I believe the following statements are true:

• Absolutely objective journalism mostly does not exist, and never did.

• If it did exist, very few people would read it. How many people watch CSPAN?

• In 2024, activist writing generates revenue. The more activist I write, the more I get in likes, donations, emails, and subscriptions. People like being told their preexisting beliefs are correct and will give you money for doing so.

I think Prof. Thrasher is doing the students a disservice.

The goal is not to start from a place of activism and build from there. The goal of a journalist is to start from a place of objectivity and say, “objectivity is not possible” and determine how you can make peace with that. That does not preclude you from “opening your heart” but it does mean when you tell a story, you should seek to print things you believe to be true with high confidence and state when you don’t know or when you are providing interpretation or opinion.

Starting from a place of activism makes it harder to get information from sources. If people already know the story you’re going to write, they’re much less willing to be part of it unless it’s a story they agree with. The most valuable and accurate information I’ve collected has been from people who disagree with me. That was a lesson learned the hard way.

Additionally, coming from an activist-first approach potentially opens you up to a world of pain as a journalist. Defamation is defined as a “false statement of fact” - if I print something about someone that is false and I present it as fact (versus opinion), I could be liable for defamation.

A good example of this is the Lady Dog-Whistledown’s Anti-Racist papers published on Facebook in March 2023. The papers listed 51 individuals (on page 2) as being members of the Evanston Chapter of FAIR. Some of the individuals I spoke with were not members of the organization and some didn’t even know what it was. Given that the papers also included some news breaking journalism too², I’d argue that this could be considered a “false statement of fact.”

Even the cops, in the police report, warned an individual who initially shared the document that they may be exposed to civil liability.

I advised [REDACTED] that her post might expose her to civil liability, although I was not a lawyer and I was not giving her legal advice.

If you want to write a story on FAIR and discuss the membership and have an activist bent, that is completely fine. In fact, other than that section on FAIR membership, I think it’s a weird but completely fine work of journalism. Sometimes you get information that is exciting and fits your world view but you just can’t print it because you don’t have enough proof. I literally have dozens of stories like this.

I view my obligation as the following, and think most journalists should have similar obligations (depending on their beat)

• Report the facts to the best of my ability and back this up with links to the original documents. Assume my readers are smart enough to consume the original documents.

• Never print gossip from unnamed sources. Either make arguments with documents and proof or don’t report on it.

• Avoid writing about individuals that are not in positions of power. I think elected officials and highly appointed officials (like Superintendent) are fair for critique but once you get lower than that, it gets dicey unless you have very strong proof.

• Understand and be aware that stories may have downstream consequences on people’s livelihoods, careers, and families. Treat these stories and subject with the utmost respect.

• When I have an opinion or interpretation of an event that is mine, disclose it as opinion. I usually say things like, “I believe” or “My understanding of ..” or “I would argue..”

• Sometimes I wrote op-eds with a specific position, that is fine, but make sure to disclose it as such. I love writing rhetorical arguments, it brings me joy, but make sure to separate it from the actual reporting.

• Disclose your biases - I’ve written at least three stories here about my biases, including on my About Me page.

I’m not a professionally trained journalist, and I’m learning this as I go. So if you have any thoughts or opinions, let me know in the comments.

1. I am a lowly Adjunct Professor in Medill (but not teaching this year)

2. They printed that one of the candidates for School Board had not been completely honest regarding her association with FAIR.