Can ACLU and other advocacy orgs be journalists too?
They’re falling short today in several areas, notably the one that comes hardest to advocates: fairness. This is a broad and somewhat fuzzy word. But it means, in general, that you a) listen hard to people who disagree with you; b) hunt for facts and data that are contrary to your own stand; and c) reflect disagreements and nuances in what you tell the rest of us.LinkAdvocacy journalism has a long and honorable history. But the best in this arena have always acknowledged the disagreements and nuances, and they’ve been fair in reflecting opposing or orthogonal views and ideas.
By doing so, they can strengthen their own arguments in the end. At the very least they are clearer, if not absolutely clear, on the other sides’ arguments, however weak. (That’s sides, not side; there are almost never only two sides to anything.)
Of course, transparency is essential in this process, and for the most part we get it from advocacy groups. The one we can’t trust are the ones who take positions that echo the views of financial patrons. The think-tank business is known for this kind of thing, and it’s an abysmal practice.
the latest
latest episodes
this, of course, is horseshit.
the "fair and balanced" meme gave us fox news.
the balancing point itself is an artifact of personal biases.
just give me more quality advocacy journalism, and trust me, the reader, to find opposing viewpoints. i dont need my hand held, and i can figure out what's what, thank you.
There's a cool story in the introduction about how instablogging embarrassed the CEO of Qwest; but it's going to take much longer to read this than it took to download it.
Um...is it not enough to be an advocacy org? Why is it so much better to be a journalistic org? Surely both do different things for different reasons...and that's both good and important.
To be honest...I don't really want my advocacy orgs wandering around trying to be 'fair and balanced'. I want them fighting my corner tooth and nail like a drunken fiery bastard.
And I think that the right-wing has proven time and time again that you get absolutely *amazing* results by throwing fairness and balance to the wind.
I think that this is a good thing. Not that advocacy orgs should try to mimic news organizations: they have a position and should write from it, openly, without watering anything down.
However, a couple of journalistic tricks and a dash of confidence can do wonders.
I often edit articles written by activists, and they're usually great, full of involvement and fire and knowledge. Still, the same problems keep repeating, for example the difficulty of measuring just how much they need to convince the reader that the issue at hand is an absolute outrage. A story that politely addresses opposing views and doesn't overstate its point is just much more effective than a one-sided, defensive essay on why torture/sexism/exploitation is wrong. Confidence is attractive.
A bit of training, a bit of journalist identity, can help these writers relax and trust their own stories.
"Fairness and balance" is required from the Left and Center, not from the Right - it's a meme used to silence arguments/facts that too clearly show where the Truth sits....you don't hear people telling US patriotism-on-their-sleeves types to be "fair and balanced". And the Abrahamic religions enjoin intolerance of other religions as a positive duty, after all - not a lot of "Fairness and Balance" in traditional (ie before "political correctness" bought on a mass attack of tact wrt these matters) Judaic/Islamic/Christian thought towards the practitioners of other religions, is there? In stark contrast to the general religious tolerance adopted by the Pagans of the Roman Republics (and Empire too, NB for my USian readers)...the same tolerance which was reborn at the very heart of the US Constitution's Enlightenment reasoning wrt religion's place in Government.
It is only important that the men appointed to be Magistrates are fair and balanced, for fairness and balance are essential attributes of Justice...not of journalism. Fairness and balance are also good in gymnasts and strippers...
The strange requirement that all elements of one's own bias are to be countered is just that - strange. Every writer has her biases - they are built in and invisible, only the future's light can reveal what's wrong or mistaken in this person's writing....to ask a writer to be "fair and balanced" is to deny the writer's individuality. Readers as well are aware that all writings are works of a writer, and as all writers are human (all interesting writers, that is), that some allowance will be made for who and when a piece was written. Why pretend that it is otherwise? Better to teach that all writing should be read with thought, not just accepted as "objective" and/or "fair" and/or "balanced". Such a "journalistic Doctrine" is only required where the only voice heard is a megaphone which purports to speak for all...like a Magistrate's. 20th C. Mass Media needed "fairness and balance" so as not to be seen and felt as the Voice of the State (which it was anyway regardless of perceptions otherwise).
On the other hand Journalists all need good editors, and they have to explain their cuts to the writers, so the Doctrine of Balance does have some utility - but little honesty.
AutoSummary Generator 1.3.1 for "Helping the Almost-Journalists Do Journalism", Dated July 24, 2008
"We're not doing our jobs, so here's how you should change the way you work so that we still won't have to. Because there's no higher calling than being a journalist and everyone wants to be one."
Thank you for using AutoSummary Generator!
In the current US adversarial legal system, in which ACLU (or other advocacy groups engaged in criminal defense) have a primary duty to defend their clients, it's hard to see how they could ethically and legally take on the additional duty of telling "both sides of the story" in a way that doesn't result in conflicts of interest.
My (weak) understanding is that the UK system features a different relationship between the attorneys in a case, with more emphasis on bringing truth to light, so perhaps there is greater opportunity there for this form of engagement.
In cases where the advocacy organizations are in an advisory or role of just making "friend-of-the-court" filings, I can see the potential for this type of process.
Beyond "journalism," perhaps the greatest potential is in crowdsourcing the discovery process, or otherwise wikifying court documents to invite greater citizen participation/contribution. You end up with something more in the spirit of "a jury of one's peers" if the whole world can way in and add understanding to a case.
(Full disclosure: I've served as a writer and editor of trade publications, and a family member headed up an ACLU chapter and is currently defending a Guantanamo prisoner)
The idea that journalists need to maintain a neutral point of view or must be "fair" in their treatment of a issue is BS. Pure, unmitigated BS.
Did Edward R. Morrow apply this poppycock fairness standard to his reporting on HUAC and Senator McCarthy? Did he "hunt for facts and data that are contrary to [his] own stand?" He did not. He reported on the situation as he saw it, unapologetically.
We need more coverage that is fact-based and opinionated in what the reporter thinks the truth is. Let the public listen and read the media and decide who they want to believe.
I smell a something funny myself. The point of being a journalist is not to present a fair or balanced system of opposing views. It's to attempt to make the truth public. And another thing! I don't think that the freedom of the press was enshrined in the constitution so that a class of reporters could call themselves the press and retain rights above ordinary citizens. I believe it was akin to the freedom of speech, but as through the written word.
Just go be good people and share truth.