A New Look At Journalism

In an age when "the media" is an ambiguous enemy apparently on both sides of the political aisle, ostensibly influenced by a liberal or corporate agenda (based on which side of the aisle you talk to about said media), it becomes difficult to remember what the media exists to do.

I say that the media exists in order to hold people accountable. It is supposed to be meant to serve the public interest by keeping us informed on what people are trying to get away with so that we can draw our own inevitable conclusions. At its core then, journalism exists to enforce and fight for morality.

If we follow this logic, it is clear that journalism should in its ideal state be progressive. It should have a backbone that is not swayed or corrupted by outside influence. This is completely different from the foolish notion that journalism should ideally remain neutral. Neutrality in an immoral world means inevitably siding with the immoral in the end.

The popular concept of neutrality as morality coincides easily with the aim of the corporations that own all major news outlets, and by extension, control the narrative of the media itself. Because as much as conservatives like to decry a supposed "liberal media," it is clear that corporations want to conserve their power and influence. The best way to do that is by toeing the line, where there is a proven avenue to monetary success, instead of challenging the societal norms that form the foundation of the world we live in.

This is why I do not believe that it is moral to remain passive in the face of violent (yes, violent) rhetoric that merely pretends to be "fair and balanced" while perpetuating a a narrative that continually denies basic human rights to the suffering masses. Casual racism and racist stereotypes, for example, contribute to a cultural conception of people of color that leads not only to physical violence but also continual fortification of immoral societal standards.

So there is obviously an issue with remaining neutral in the presentation of the stories we present. Yet it is also important to recognize that the stories we choose to even discuss, and the facts we deign to include and exclude, also contribute to a political agenda. One may choose to write an article about escalating tensions in a country demanding reforms to an oppressive political regime. By not including the fact that the opposition party organizing demonstrations and calling for the reforms are white supremacists, we lose a huge part of the story and as such the reader is given a limited understanding of the situation.

The way a story is framed gives it its structure; it influences the way the entire situation being reported is understood. I do not believe that it is ideal to frame both sides of a debate as equally valid, though I do agree that both sides must be addressed. That is, I think it is immoral to present both sides of a debate as credible merely to be able to claim journalistic integrity because it is dangerous false equivalency.

If morality is progressive, then it follows logically that journalism, as an ostensible force for honesty and justice, must likewise be earnestly progressive in all its forms. Only then will we be truly able to fight oppression in this world.