Advocacy journalism has made a splash in recent years as the type of reporting that has an opinion. This is not to say that only some journalism has an opinion because they all do. However, the difference here is that those who are considered advocacy journalists are very open about their opinion when reporting their stories. These journalists go about their job in a facts-based way but with the edge of supporting a specific view or agenda. Some of these agendas deal with politics, climate, social issues, corporate business, and so on. These journalists take a stand in what they are writing and refuse to be objective. Whether this refusal is for an actual passion of the topic at hand or just for ratings, that is another story; but many of the reporters do really seem to be whole-heartedly convicted to their stories.
There are different reasons for these journalists wanting to disregard objectivity in their jobs. One of the main reasons is that journalists want the edge up today’s competitive job market. It is difficult to find a job in the climate of economy we are dealing with these days so having an opinion that will get a lot of attention is a plus. If they can say something that will get viewers to turn up their televisions, they are doing their job right.
Another reason many journalists are leaning toward this form is because a great number believe that there is no such thing as being completely objective to begin with. They believe that when it comes to most issues, it is impossible to report in a “matter-of-fact” type of way with no bias or underlined opinion in the matter that comes out. It is also said that many news outlets while trying to be “unbiased” are really promoting their own cause anyways, leaving no room for actual objectivity. A great example of this would be many of the 24-hour news outlets such as CNN and FOX News. They claim that they are objective but it is obvious which political parties they lean toward and which issues that agree and disagree with.
With all this though, it is claimed that regardless of how they actually report the information, the audience who wants to watch will continue to watch and the one who doesn’t will turn off the channel. Viewers who agree with the message will probably continue to agree with most everything else on the channel that is already non-objective. Obviously, this is not 100 percent of the time, but in regards to national issues such as politics and economics, this theory could stand true for many.
Another important part of advocacy journalism is that it is not all “muckraking”. For the most part, this form of journalism tries to be as factually correct as possible while still promoting a specific agenda. These journalists believe that this is more than possible.
In Western Europe, this idea is no different. The only difference between the United States media and in Europe is that we try to look objective while they are more straightforward about the fact that they are reporting based on a biased opinion. Spain’s media is extremely biased in the sense that while yes, they are allowed to report and have free press these days, the government’s opinion is still plastered all over the newsstands. However, in recent days with the protests and whatnot, the role of advocacy journalism is even more important for this country. At this point, they are going through mass protests regarding the government and its role in the citizen’s lives. It is a huge debate between which type of political system is better for Spain and the journalists are definitely taking advantage of such a mass outcry from the people of Spain.
While many consider this type of journalism great, especially those who regard a certain political party highly or on a certain issue, others think that the lack of objectivity will cloud the mind of those who are either uneducated enough to discern what is “good” from what is “bad” and what is true and factual as opposed to just, well, “muck”.
No comments:
Post a Comment