Lecture 4 The Hows and Whys of Advocacy Journalism - Recap

THE HOWS AND WHYS of ADVOCACY JOURNALISM

Is biased journalism always a problem? Or can it be admired, as ‘advocacy journalism’?



The term refers to a genre of journalism that veers from usual standards of fairness and objectivity and projects a biased viewpoint — right up front and with unfettered intention.

In a clear example of advocacy journalism, The Globe and Mail newspaper several years ago published a hard-hitting series on a longstanding lack of public support for those living with thalidomide. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/topic/Thalidomide

The deformed, aging Canadians described were struggling with their disabilities and had not received the level of financial help that other countries had extended to their own victims.

The newspaper ran a succession of hard-hitting news reports, supplemented by editorial opinion pieces, over a period of months, and the Globe journalists made no apologies for boldly pursuing government compensation on behalf of the disabled individuals.

In the end, because of the Globe efforts, the issue found its way to Parliament and Stephen Harper’s Conservative government announced a $180 million agreement with members of the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada. Each of the country’s nearly 100 thalidomide survivors received cheques of $125,000.

Absolutely nobody accused the Globe of biased journalism. This was advocacy journalism at its best.

It is not clear exactly when advocacy journalism made a first appearance but back in 1827 Freedom’s Journal, the first African-American owned and operated newspaper published in the U.S., was described as an advocacy publication.

Later, in 1910, The Crisis, the official magazine of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People, was established in New York and continued the advocacy tradition.

Renowned scribe Hunter S. Thomson (1937 – 2005) is associated with a slightly different kind of advocacy journalism, known as gonzo journalism, that also rejects objectivity, having the writer play a first-person narrator role in stories.

Some people assert that all journalism is advocacy journalism, if for no other reason than individual editors and reporters make subjective choices about what stories they plan to cover, and who they interview for their stories. Is pure objectivity ever really possible?

Others worry that some people out there rely too heavily on talk radio, blogs and point-of-view websites as their main source of news.

The worry is understandable. In recent years online blogs have proliferated in which objectivity and neutrality often take a back seat to the blogger’s priorities.

Generally, it is believed that newspapers – with the exception of their opinion columns and editorial pages – do try to maintain fairness and balance in their reporting. Certainly it would be inappropriate for a daily or weekly to pursue advocacy journalism in its coverage of the courts or government proceedings. Objectivity is upheld in regular reporting, if for no other reason, than to ensure the newspaper maintains its credibility and standing with the public.

Clearly newspaper readers tend to not wish to be dictated to, or told what they ought to think. News consumers most often prefer to be informed about both sides of any controversy and then make up their own minds. And newspapers are well aware of this.

Accordingly, the Canadian Association of Journalists’ Principles for Ethical Journalism pledges: “We strive for accuracy and fairness: we avoid allowing our biases to influence our reporting; we disclose conflicts of interest; we give people, companies or organizations that are criticized in our reporting the opportunity present their points of view prior to publication; we respect people’s civil rights, including the rights to privacy and a fair trial; we don’t alter photos, videos or sound in ways that mislead the public.“

Likewise, the Canadian Press, in a statement on its impartiality, says: “In our reports, parties in controversy, whether in politics or law or otherwise, receive fair consideration. Statements issued by conflicting interests merit equal prominence, whether combined in a single story or used at separate times.”

Even with publications making such public pledges about maintaining objectivity and fairness, polling data reveals that, at least in the U.S., a good chunk of the public views the press as inaccurate, one-sided and lacking independence.

So, advocacy journalism can be risky for publications. Its point-of-view nature can turn off some readers if they do not appreciate the point of view being expressed, and augment mistrust in the media.

Where it is safely practiced, topics tend to reflect a perspective that is apt to be shared by a vast majority of readers. The Globe and Mail was not exactly going out on a limb in its thalidomide series, fighting for financial compensation that most right-thinking people would have viewed as long overdue. The compensation was not simply an award of cash; it was to be used in a practical way to help people pay for their specialized needs which up to that point they were hard pressed to afford.

Similarly, the Globe recently published a series of stories on sex assault cases across Canada that were determined to be unfounded, showing how police forces were failing the assault victims. The series exposed flaws in police law enforcement practices. Strongly supported by personal stories and statistics, it is doubtful that many readers would have been annoyed or angered by the series. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/in-unprecedented-response-32-canadian-police-forces-to-review-thousands-of-sexual-assault-complaints/article33991368/

When undertaking advocacy journalism, newspapers should keep several guideposts in mind, Sue Careless told the Canadian Association of Journalists in a 2000 address.

Careless, a member of the CAJ as well as the Periodical Writers of Canada, advocated:

• acknowledging up front the perspective to be taken;
• being truthful and credible;
• avoiding the suppression of facts or presentation of half truths;
• being sure to not ignore opponents even though not giving them equal time;
• asking critical questions of those who agree with you and exploring arguments that challenge the perspective being advocated;
• being fair and thorough.

By not entirely dismissing the alternative side, a writer strengthens the credibility of the viewpoint being promoted. The arguments will be seen as being more considered, thoughtful and fair when all sides have at least been taken into account.

Advocacy journalism, unlike investigative reporting, does not always require inordinate resources and staffing availability. It is not something that only the big metropolitan dailies can afford to do. In fact, smaller, community newspapers are well positioned to practice this sort of journalism, given how intimately they know their own communities and its challenges. They know what problems have festered forever at City Hall, and why the pothole-repair budget always fails to keep pace.

Topics explored are ones that, as noted above, frequently invite a consensus viewpoint. Once a social problem or known challenge has been selected, the newspaper can assign a reporter and become an advocate, pounding away in print until appropriate remedies are found. It is as simple as that.

Indeed such efforts can positively raise a newspaper’s profile in the community.

The Globe basked in a considerable amount of glory after it convinced Ottawa to cough up the millions needed to settle with the thalidomide victims. It won project of the year in the 2015 National Newspaper Awards competition. The project also netted the Globe a Canadian Journalism Foundation Award and the Michener Award for Public Service Journalism.

It is exactly these sorts of stories that earn national awards, which in turn greatly enhance the reputation of a publication and increase its public support.

First-person accounts, which are sometimes described as advocacy journalism, also hold value for a newspaper. To be sure, they are entertaining to read. But editorial caution needs to be exercised because such pieces can come across as self indulgent and self serving, which would be a turnoff for readers.

It tends to works better when a writer profiles another person’s first-person account. One good example of this type of journalism is CBC’s Go Public segment. This is unadulterated advocacy journalism that spotlights an unfairness in the community, as perpetrated on an individual who volunteers to tell his or her story to CBC. Because Go Public is a regular CBC feature that listeners have come to expect, the profile of the segment has been enhanced. http://www.cbc.ca/news/gopublic

Go Public exposes situations where an interviewee has been treated egregiously by a government department or corporate entity. More often than not, as a result of the report, the matter is resolved to the interviewee’s satisfaction. The broadcaster greatly benefits from this advocacy journalism, appearing as a champion for the proverbial little guy. The stories obviously are about real people and real problems – something readers love to hear about and can identify with, and probably feel ‘there but for the grace go I”.

In a variation on that theme, the Toronto Star collects donations each year for its Santa Claus Fund, publishing stories about people in the community who benefit from the associated donations.

https://www.thestar.com/initiatives/santa_claus_fund.html

Meanwhile, its ongoing Fresh Air Fund collects donations that support the sending of thousands of local children to camp each summer. https://www.thestar.com/initiatives/fresh_air_fund.html

Recap:

• Community newspapers should not be afraid to tackle advocacy journalism; it requires dedication and judgment, not necessarily a huge volume of resources;

• Advocacy journalism, carried out on behalf of individuals in the community, and run as a regular feature, can be highly effective in enhancing a newspaper’s profile. It is also something folks love reading;

• It is necessary to choose a topic wisely so that readers will not question the newspaper’s lack of objectivity, but rather, admire the publication for undertaking the research and writing. It may be worthwhile considering a series rather than a one-off article so that there is a build-up of pressure on authorities to address the issue;

• Always acknowledge what opposition there is to the viewpoint the newspaper is implicitly advocating in its series in order to bolster the credibility of the effort.