3 Advocacy, Objectivity and Intervention

In the previous lesson, we studied an example about coverage of Kobe Bryant’s death. Specifically, we discussed how advocates for the #MeToo movement argued that a 2003 rape case should have been a prominent part of Bryant’s obituary, while others disagreed. Professional and public attitudes toward advocacy journalism have evolved since 2003, as you can read in the following analysis published in 2020 by the Guardian:

• How would Kobe Bryant’s 2003 rape case have fared in the #MeToo era?

The Guardian article includes this:

Obituaries and news reports from some of the nation’s top news companies omitted mentions of the rape trial, which at the time was such a media frenzy it was compared to the OJ Simpson case. Death threats were made against people who mentioned it on social media, and a Washington Post reporter was suspended for sharing an article about it on Twitter.

For a quick glimpse of the journalists’ concerns at the time of the Kobe Bryant rape case in 2003, watch this 30-second promo from Dateline NBC.

(The video teaser above includes questions about privacy for the accuser. We’ll cover privacy in a future lesson.)

U.S. news journalists have established a tradition of valuing objective journalism that purports to provide balanced facts so that readers can form their own opinions. But is it possible for U.S. journalists to live normal lives as American citizens, participate in democracy, and still be objective?

Although the content of this lesson focuses primarily on news reporting, it can also apply to professionals in advertising and public relations. By the nature of the work, the fields of advertising and public relations require advocacy for companies, organizations and products.

ADVOCACY vs. OBJECTIVITY

For an overview of the advocacy vs. objectivity debate, study the following presentation slides by using the forward button or clicking on sections of the control bar.

Definitions of objectivity vary, but for this chapter we’ll define it as a guiding principle that calls for journalists to be neutral and to approach the reporting process in a manner free from bias. If you are interested in the evolution of objectivity in American journalism, study this feature story:

• Journalistic objectivity evolved the way it did for a reason – Time Spotlight Story

It includes a memorable quote a Los Angeles Times editor:

If both sides equally think you’re doing a crappy job, maybe you’re not. Maybe you’re doing what you’re supposed to do.

Although most journalism students are taught about the importance of objectivity in news reporting, criticism of objectivity is increasing, especially among younger practitioners. Read the following viewpoints from college student journalists:

• Student journalists ask: Is objectivity becoming obsolete? – Poynter

One student editor provided this perspective:

What I’ve found is that the younger generation is a lot more cognizant of the fact that nobody is really an objective person, in their day-to-day life or in their work. What I’ve seen is a move toward people trying to be open about their biases … and saying, this is how my experiences and how my identity impacts my work.

Alex Sujong Laughlin, in a newsletter about gender in media for Poynter, echoes the idea that journalists should be open about their biases. She reflects on “a choice to make between professionalism and humanity.”

• It’s possible to be a journalist and a human – Poynter

Here is a key viewpoint in her essay:

Performing objectivity is outdated, and if we want to preserve public trust in media institutions, the best thing we can do is to tell the truth.

To be a journalist is to absorb reality and filter the most necessary, useful information for our audiences. We contextualize. We choose facts.

A POLITICAL PROBLEM

Questions about advocacy and objectivity frequently surface in political coverage. If a public official provides important information that can’t be proven true, an objective reporter has a couple of choices.

1. The reporter can simply report the official’s word-for-word quotes or soundbites with minimal context, especially if they come from social media. This can seem like a safe strategy to avoid political controversy, but it ignores the journalist’s role as a fact-checker in giving audiences reliable, credible information.

2. The reporter can question or refute a governmental official’s public statements. This can make the story more truthful, but some audience members will think it adds bias to the coverage. Research studies published in 2024 suggested that readers are more suspicious of journalists providing corrections than journalists providing confirmations.

BIG PAY RAISE, OR NOT?

Let’s study a presidential case example. In 2018, then-President Donald Trump told American troops in Iraq that he had given them a 10% pay raise. Here is a quote from his speech:

“You just got one of the biggest pay raises you’ve ever received. You haven’t gotten one in more than 10 years — more than 10 years. And we got you a big one. I got you a big one.”

You can read an NBC news fact-check analysis and view portions of Trump’s speech here:

• NBC News Fact Check

• Troops Won’t See The Pay Raise President Donald Trump Said They Would – NBC Nightly News

In objective reporting, a reporter covering the speech might write something like this:

President Donald Trump today announced that he had given U.S. troops a 10% raise, which he said is their first raise in a decade. However, some analysts questioned the numbers Trump cited in his announcement.

A more aggressively reported version of the story could read like this:

President Donald Trump lied to U.S. troops today when he said he had given them a 10% raise, and then he falsely stated that this was their first raise in a decade. In fact, the troops will receive only a 2.6% raise this year, and they have received pay raises multiple times in the past decade.

To be clear, neither major U.S. political party has a monopoly on politicians making false claims to the public. For example, Axios reported how, as part of the 2024 presidential campaign, Democrat Kamala Harris’ staffers rewrote news headlines for Google ads.

But does a reporter who outright labels a politician’s statement as “a lie,” even when the statement really is a lie, appear to become an advocate for an opposing candidate or political party?

Similarly, as a public relations example, what should a PR executive do if a company CEO makes a false or misleading statement about the safety and usefulness of a company product? Does the PR executive have an ethical duty to provide the public with accurate information and additional context along with the CEO’s statement?

POLITICAL ADVOCACY

U.S. politicians occasionally create narratives that sound authentic to their supporters but lack any evidence of truth. This occurred in 2024 when some conservatives repeated unverified social media claims that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating dogs and cats. The city manager and the Ohio governor refuted those claims.

Although the narrative about immigrants eating pets seemed to be fabricated and may have damaged Americans’ perception of Haitians, a few conservatives argued that advocating for badly needed societal change, such as immigration reform, can be more important than adhering to absolute truth

While campaigning as the Republican vice presidential candidate in 2024, J.D. Vance said, “If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do.”

Note how Vance’s approach to political advocacy creates challenges for journalists in following the first principle of the SPJ Code of Ethics: Seek truth and report it.

The New York Times later reported that an Ohio woman, who was a source of one of the posts that led to the Springfield controversy, later regretted sharing a false rumor about Haitians on Facebook. The woman eventually deleted the post and admitted that she had no information herself about any abducted cats.

ADDITIONAL VIEWPOINTS

Read the following articles to gain more perspective on how working journalists handle misleading claims made by important sources. Start with this:

•  NBC News’ Lester Holt says news media should not provide “an open platform for misinformation” – Deadline

Holt makes this argument:

The idea that we should always give two sides equal weight and merit does not reflect the world we find ourselves in. That the sun sets in the west is a fact. Any contrary view does not deserve our time or attention.

Then read this article by Brianna Connock about truth sandwiches as a strategy for ethical reporting:

• Ohio newspaper opts not to cover misstatements of U.S. Senate candidate, joining growing list of newsrooms favoring ‘truth sandwiches’ – Gateway Journalism Review

This truth sandwich uses two true statements to surround a dubious claim made by a politician or other public figure. Carol Marin, director of the Center for Journalism Integrity and Excellence at Depaul University and a longtime political reporter who is quoted in the article, says the headline should not be the false information. She adds that misinformation is not a new phenomenon:

The fact is, there have always been people who have thrown out untruths to gain whatever advantage they think those untruths get them. And it’s not just politicians, it’s business, it’s corporations.

For an optional deeper dive into news psychology, you may want to read the following analysis of denialism:

• Coronavirus responses highlight how humans are hardwired to dismiss facts that don’t fit their worldview – Harvard’s Nieman Lab

According to Adrian Bardon, the author of the article, “it turns out that one’s political, religious or ethnic identity quite effectively predicts one’s willingness to accept expertise on any given politicized issue.” Bardon adds that “in ideologically charged situations, one’s prejudices end up affecting one’s factual beliefs.”

PREPARATION FOR ENRIQUE’S JOURNEY

Issues of intervention also surface in stories about immigration. While working for the Los Angeles Times, Sonia Nazario won the 2003 Pulitzer Prize in Feature Writing. Her award-winning series of feature stories, which later became the focal point of a book, followed a boy named Enrique and other boys who traveled from Central America across the Mexican border in search of their mothers in the United States. As a reporter, Nazario was there to observe and not intervene in the boys’ journey. She understood that if she intervened, she risked altering the trajectory and outcome of her story. For an overview of Nazario’s work, you can peruse the website for Enrique’s Journey:

• Enrique’s Journey website

Then read the following essay that Nazario wrote about ethical dilemmas she faced and how she prepared for various scenarios.

• Ethical dilemmas in telling Enrique’s Story – Harvard’s Nieman Lab

Nazario said she planned ahead by asking herself questions:

What are the worst-case scenarios that could happen along the journey, and how would you react to them? What’s the worst thing that could happen to these kids that might cause you to intervene? You have to think these things out ahead of time, because things can happen so quickly that it’s too late to react in an appropriate way if you’re not prepared.

THE JOURNEY FROM OBJECTIVITY TO ADVOCACY

Approximately a decade after Nazario won the Pulitzer Prize, Jon Stewart interviewed her on The Daily Show. During the interview, she said, “I think we need to see these children for what they are. They are refugees.” She asserted that Republicans “used these children as punching bags” to appeal to voters. She later said, “Shame on him,” referring to then-President Barrack Obama’s handling of the children’s legal status.

To some observers, her comments cross a line from objectivity to advocacy. On the other hand, because Nazario had first-hand knowledge that her audience didn’t, she may have been more qualified to advocate for the children who were the subjects of her story. Consider the following bullet points about objectivity and advocacy:

• In her initial reporting, she tried to remain objective by avoiding intervention unless necessary.
• She gained expertise about an issue through her reporting.
• Her in-depth reporting perhaps gave her expertise to voice authentic concerns and advocate for change.

Those three bullet points can lead us to two opposing questions:

• By sharing her opinions, does she become biased to the extent that her future reporting might lack credibility?
  OR
• Does her expertise inevitably lead to advocacy because she has a broad and deep understanding of an issue to share with her audience?

In a 2017 interview, Nazario acknowledged a change in her attitude following the publication of Enrique’s Story. She said that “reporting the facts didn’t feel like enough,” and she began embracing the term “activist” to describe her subsequent work. The following interview describes her evolution from journalist to activist.

• Journalist Sonia Nazario on coming out as an activist – UC-Berkeley Alumni Association

INTERVENTION WITH COMPASSIONATE ASSISTANCE

For an additional viewpoint on journalists who offer aid to the subjects of their stories, read the following essay written by Alexandria Neason for Columbia Journalism Review:

• Must aid be an ethical dilemma?

Here’s a crucial part of the essay:

Journalists are comfortable referring to our industry as the fourth estate, playing a vital democratic role for the people. Holding truth to power—accountability journalism—is among our top values. But we trip over ourselves when it comes to conversations about whether reporters (especially those working in vulnerable places and dire situations) are allowed to provide aid to the people whose stories we sell.

CLOSING REVIEW