Journalism and Activism: Speaking Truth To Power IS What Journalism Is Suppose To Do

An article by David Carr entitled “Journalism, Even When It’s Tilted” appeared in the print edition of The New York Times on July 1, 2013. The article, written in response to Glenn Greenwald's reporting for The Guardian on Edward Snowden's revelations that year, was a mixed bag of important points stated clearly, and historical context misstated. Thankfully Mr. Carr did not equivocate when he said, “when it comes to divulging national secrets, the law grants journalists special protections that are afforded to no one else. To exclude some writers from the profession is to leave them naked before a government that is deeply unhappy that its secret business is on wide display.” He also reminds us of another important fact: “activism — which is admittedly accompanied by the kind of determination that can prompt discovery — can also impair vision. If an agenda is in play and momentum is at work, cracks may go unexplored.”  Unfortunately, Mr. Carr also said that when there is a desire to speak to an issue a journalist loses objectivity because, “the primary objective remains winning the argument.” That statement calls into question the journalistic integrity of any reporter who dares speak truth to power.

Mr. Carr’s article also stated that the line between journalism and activism is becoming difficult to discern, and implying that this is a recent development caused by the industry pulling back and laying off reporters. It is historically accurate that independent media has filled the gaps left by big, cumbersome media. However, this leads to one of the more troubling statements made by Mr. Carr, which reveals a convenient lack of institutional memory: “In the 1800s, journalism was underwritten by powerful people, the government or political parties. It was only when an economic incentive for information absent a political agenda took hold that an independent press also emerged.” Here he gets it wrong on two fundamental points: first, The independent press preceded the American Revolution, and reasserted itself over and over throughout American history. It has always been activist, attacking bad governance or corrupt business, and critiquing the failure of the mainstream media to cover, or uncover, those stories.

Speaking to the same issue five days earlier in the Huffington Post, Ithaca College Journalism Professor and founder of FAIR, Jeff Cohen, had this to say, "The truth is that many of the greatest journalists in our country’s history —from Ida B. Wellsto I.F. Stone — were accurate reporters of fact, but hardly dispassionate. And mainstream outlets have always had hybrid reporter/columnists offering both fact and advocacy; one of the most famous, David Broder, graced the pages of the Washington Post for years, including its front page."  

The second point Mr. Carr did not get quite right was the notion that after the 1800’s an economic incentive for information absent a political agenda took hold. The US mainstream media may have toned down its highly partisan bias over the last hundred years, but has clearly staked out a center-right bias supporting American institutional power. If the line between activism and journalism is being blurred it is by the mainstream media, which claims to be objective or ‘fair and balanced' while it systematically ignores the left. Corporate media has ‘skin in the game,’ and favors its own interest by consistently doing two things: publishing whatever sells and protecting the institutions of capital it is allied with.