Journalism can't be afraid of telling the whole truth
Prestigious journalistic outlets have long gone to great lengths to appear unbiased. That clinical approach often leads to work that falls short of the industry's supposed goals.
Journalism is at its core an institution designed to keep people informed. Our highly interconnected global society makes that mission all the more important. We have a duty to tell the truth. No hedging, no softening blows. Just honesty and speaking truth to power.
That honesty is more important than ever today. The country has been torn asunder by a deadly pandemic that’s far from over and a mass uprising against racism and the police state. That honesty is needed at every level, from local publications to outlets that cover the globe. And while there’s plenty of good journalism being done, the industry is in dire need of a recommitment to those ideals.
Too often do journalists simply defer to both-sidesism and credulously official claims rather than doing the actual job of telling consumers what in fact is going on. It’s a dangerous school of thought that’s being pushed back on by journalists both young and old.
Journalists are trained to take an objective view on the matters they cover. The matter of what constitutes “objectivity” is where the disagreement comes from. I think we can all agree that you shouldn't be assigned to cover, say, a politician you’re also a paid consultant for. But should journalists have openly-stated political opinions? Should they donate to political advocacy groups or candidates? Some reporters go as far as not voting to shield themselves from accusations of bias.
I think we can all agree that human beings do not suddenly become devoid of opinions and political leanings the minute they pick up a notebook and recorder. And that’s okay! I’m more than okay with reporters being opinionated political beings because everyone else is too. I just spent the first two paragraphs of this essay talking up the importance of journalism and how vital good reporting is to our society, but being opinionated isn’t a vice or an encumbrance to good reporting. In fact, I’d argue it’s part of what encourages good reporting.
Let’s start with the basic stuff. If you consume virtually any news, you’ve probably seen the phrase “officer-involved shooting.”
The news did not invent the phrase “officer-involved shooting.” It largely comes from language used in official releases from police departments. When you hear something along the lines of “Police say a 26 year-old man was killed in an officer-involved shooting earlier tonight,” that’s often a rehashing of an official release that comes from the police themselves. It’s a perfect example of passive voice, which softens actions and can be used as a way to remove responsibility. The man was killed, but how? The report says it was in a shooting, but does it say the man was shot? Who shot him? And what the hell is an officer-involved shooting anyway?
What’s more responsible reporting? The sentence we’ve been referring to, or:
“Police officers shot and killed a 26 year-old man earlier tonight.”
It’s more direct. It’s an active phrase. It tells you who shot who. It doesn’t prevent you from providing additional context, such as why the shooting took place. It provides weight to the subject matter, which is always important when the subject is death. Most importantly, it doesn’t shield a powerful institution.
The creation of the phrase “officer-involved shooting” was no accident. Sure, a robbery that turns into a shootout when the perp brandishes a gun and starts firing is an officer-involved shooting. The murders of Tamir Rice, Philando Castile, Breonna Taylor and countless others were also officer-involved shootings. Using the same blanket term for all of these incidents softens the depictions of the shootings where officers were blatantly in the wrong and need to be held accountable for their actions. By parroting this language, the media becomes complicit in shielding those officers from justice.
The need to give both sides of a story equal weight is fine in a vacuum. Person A says this, but Person B says this, here’s what the evidence says. The scales quickly tip out of balance in real life though. What if Person A is a cop with the full weight of his police department, the police union, the local government and the state behind him? What if Person B is an impoverished person of color, and what if that officer-involved shooting left Person B dead? What if there isn’t any video of the shooting because the cop didn’t turn their body camera on like they were supposed to - if they were even wearing one?
There is no equal weight in that scenario. There’s just the official report and what any witnesses may or may not have seen.
That lack of equal weight must be reflected in reporting, as it’s part of the truth that journalism is supposed to convey
There’s something else in that scenario. It’s called memory. It’s object permanence, which journalism must have if it’s going to be at all reliable. We know that police reports of use of force are unreliable at best. We know that they’re especially unreliable when they involve BIPOC or people with mental illnesses.
Journalists can’t just say “The cops said this, but they’re probably lying.” That’s not fair. But we can also convey the necessary skepticism to the consumer. Obviously it would be nice to include statistical facts and context on police violence in every report about police violence, but not all formats of journalism are conducive to that. Your local news broadcast only has so much time per story, and radio broadcasts have that time constraint in addition to a lack of a visual element. In fact, those time constraints can often lead to incredibly shoddy reporting. You’ve seen the video of Martin Gugino being shoved to the ground so hard that he bled from his ears, right?
The statement from the police said that Gugino tripped and fell. Here’s how some of the local coverage went that night:
So what’s the most basic step journalists can use to convey that skepticism? Besides, you know, airing the damn video?
Use the word “claim.” “Police claim that such and such happened” is very different from “Police say that such and such happened.” “Claim” immediately establishes the subject as a questionable narrator. This tactic is sorely underused in journalistic work and should be applied everywhere, not just when dealing with the police.
If I had a dollar for every time major outlets have reported on things that Donald Trump has said are true when there’s mountains of evidence showing that thing isn’t true and didn’t immediately display that evidence as proof that the President was lying, and instead of calling out the President’s lies reported on the President’s critics pointing out what is actually true, I’d be rich. I’d be even richer if I had a dollar for every time his rhetoric has been called “racially-charged” or “brash” instead of “racist” or “sexist.” Or for when they didn’t use the word “lie” when we know for a fact that the President is lying.
What the hell does all of that have to do with journalists unashamedly holding political beliefs?
Here’s the thing. That both-sides philosophy? The idea that apolitical existence leads to the best journalism? It itself is inherently political. You have to choose to give the benefit of the doubt to those who clearly do not deserve it. Giving equal weight to those who support policies that disproportionately harm oppressed groups and those who oppose those parties does nothing but inherently support the oppressor by presenting their will as normal and worthy of exploration.
Can we not all agree that there are certain inherent moral absolutes? Can we not all agree that putting children in camps on the border and separating them from their parents is morally wrong? Can we not all agree that police violence against BIPOC, highly segregated schools and anti-LGBTQ laws are morally wrong? Can we not all agree that climate change is a scientific fact and that those who deny its existence and seek to codify that denial into law are dangerous?
The old school of journalism would say no. The old school of journalism, which many students studying the profession in college are still taught, says that if you must do anything resembling taking a side, you should present the facts and context for the reader and let the person in the wrong hang themselves with their own rope. This method is deeply flawed, especially in a day and age when many aren’t reading articles in full (how many of you have actually gotten this far in the essay?) and broadcast news must be compressed into advertiser-friendly chunks.
Journalists like Wesley Lowery, a Pulitzer Prize-winner, have been instrumental in breaking this mold. Lowery is, in my opinion, the best reporter in the business right now. His work is awe-inspiring and pulls no punches. He’s vocal on social media and unafraid of speaking truth to power.
It’s why he no longer works for the Washington Post and editor Marty Baron.
The industry is changing. It’s becoming more willing to tackle things head-on. It’s about damn time.