Has activism changed the standard of truth in journalism?

The standard of truth in journalism has traditionally been “objectivity.” Objectivity can be defined in several manners – “freedom of bias” is one definition by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary that encompasses the heart of the word. To be objective is to be direct, fair, and impartial. 

Print journalism, primarily news and other fact-based reporting, has generally relied on the standard of objectivity to garner its audience’s trust and deliver effective reporting. Though it was a gradual development, many scholars point to the 20th century as the inception of objectivity as the standard of truth in journalism. Rising global political tensions and a shift in the world view of journalism as a profession resulted in a new “wave” of journalism. 

Although many opposed objectivity as the new default standard, newsrooms, primarily in the Western World, viewed neutrality as a mechanism to reach wider audiences and prevent the profession’s failure amid newspaper closures. Those in opposition of objectivity argued that “it privileged the perspectives of the powerful and caused journalists to withhold their knowledge from reader.” 

Along with objectivity unfolded a set of norms and ethics in the 20th century that have stipulated the breadth of journalistic coverage for generations. These norms and ethics –  developed in an era where newspapers were one of the only sources of information –  have since dictated what constitutes “good” journalism. They largely mirror the guiding principle of impartiality, both inside and outside the newsroom, so as to not influence readers. But these professional codes originated in a world far different from today – a world where technology and human rights were just being born. 

Platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and X (formally known as Twitter) are responsible for the world’s unprecedented interconnectedness. Therefore, they also facilitate the spread of information, whether accurate or not. 

In recent years, there has been an upward trend of digital activism. Following American investigative journalist Ronan Farrow’s exposure of the deep-rooted culture of sexual violence in Hollywood in 2017, the #MeToo movement fundamentally altered how internet users interact with digital media. 

Shortly after in 2020, George Floyd’s murder at the hands of police prompted a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement. Floyd’s death sparked the inception of a new era in social media where activism is currency for respect. 

Activism has long been a facet of society, holding the institutions of power accountable and striving to promote positive progress. The intersection of journalists and activism has generally been frowned upon since the birth of objectivity as the ethical code. In this new era, expectations have changed. And, perhaps simultaneously, journalists are simply more willing to embrace overlap. 

Following the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements, matters of diversity, discrimination, and rights protection have increasingly been challenged. Discussions on social media have immense influence, and arguably dictate the political trajectory of a nation. These online discussions and movements further act as a metric of accountability for those perceived as having committed wrongdoing or even for their silence on a matter of global significance. 

An article by The Washington Post reports that more and more those in the journalism industry argue that “the concept of journalistic objectivity is a distortion of reality.” The difficulty arises in determining where the line is drawn without undermining journalistic integrity. What differentiates activism from mere opinion when reporting? 

The problem in tackling this dilemma lies in balancing the realities of modern society on the one hand and the duty of journalists to democratic society on the other.

Supporters of activism in journalism deem that “pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading ‘both-sidesism’ in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects.” Both-sidesism refers to the media practise of giving credit to the other side of an action or idea for the sake of fairness when that side’s argument is unmerited. In other words, reporting on matters of human rights lends itself to the need to demonstrate support for the ill-treated in one’s work rather than giving both sides of the conflict an equal platform to be heard. 

Joseph Kahn, executive editor of the New York Times, stated, “When the evidence is there, we should be clear and direct with our audience that we don’t think there are multiple sides to this question.” To make unequal things appear equal for the sake of objectivity would be a failure to the readers and democracy. 

Opposers of this growing trend argue that independent journalism calls for plainly stating facts regardless of the outcome. It is not the role of the journalist to interject their personal bias and influence the reader. Journalism exists for the reader to access information and develop their own opinions based on objective truth. 

Impartiality is crucial to the integrity of journalism. However, the concept of objectivity is blurred by the inundation of facts and “truth” on social media. Rapid advances in technology have meant that the framework of journalism has had to mould itself to the demands of its digital-age audience, playing catch-up with the technology.

It is unrealistic to expect the tenets of journalism to remain stagnant in an ever-changing world – it is natural for things to change over time. The beliefs, values, and needs of society are far different from when the strict standard of objectivity was adopted. Therefore, an evolution of journalism is warranted. 

Whether or not such an evolution will allow for activism as common practice in news reporting is unclear. 

What is clear is the impact that activism has already had in raising questions about the efficacy and ethics of the current standard of truth in journalism. The mere fact that a growing number of professionals in the industry are making room for activism in their work points to an interesting future. A new standard of truth has already begun to permeate journalism.