Truth in Black and White?

By Brian Ochieng Akoko, Reporter | Nakuru City – Kenya.

Journalism has a sacred rule. It is called objectivity. A journalist is supposed to be neutral. They are supposed to present the facts without bias. They are not supposed to take a side.

This has been the standard for decades. It is the foundation of trust in the news. But in a polarized world, that line is getting blurry.

Some journalists are choosing to report not just the facts, but the truth as they see it. They are moving from reporting to advocacy.

They are becoming activists. This is a major debate in the industry. It is a debate about the very purpose of journalism.

The Case for Activism

The argument for activism is simple. In some cases, neutrality is a form of cowardice. When a story involves human rights, is it possible to be neutral?

Should a journalist be neutral when reporting on racial injustice? Or climate change? Or government lies? Some journalists argue that their job is to serve the public.

They say that serving the public means fighting for justice. It means exposing injustice. It means giving a voice to the marginalized. They say that a reporter cannot be objective when one side is simply wrong.

This approach is rooted in a tradition of „moral clarity.“ It argues that a journalist should be on the side of the truth. It argues that a journalist should not give equal time to a lie.

It argues that the old rules of objectivity are no longer enough. The stakes are too high. For these journalists, the goal is not to present two sides of an argument. The goal is to present the facts as they are.

If one side’s facts are stronger, then the reporting should reflect that. They believe that this is a more honest form of journalism. It is a journalism that is not afraid to take a stand.

The Case for Objectivity

The argument against activism is just as strong. It is built on the idea of trust. When a journalist takes a side, they lose credibility. Their audience knows where they stand.

They will no longer trust them to be fair. Opponents of activism say that it is a slippery slope. It starts with reporting on climate change. It ends with a journalist becoming a political operative.

They say that a journalist’s personal beliefs should be kept out of their work. The job is to report, not to preach. This view holds that a journalist’s job is to present the facts and let the public decide.

The public should be able to make up their own minds. The public should not have the truth spoon-fed to them. The journalist is a guide, not a judge. This approach is also about reaching a wider audience.

A journalist who is seen as an activist will only be trusted by people who agree with them. They will be ignored by everyone else.

This makes it harder to have a national conversation. It makes it harder to bring people together. It adds to the polarization.

The Blurry Lines

The lines between reporting and activism are not always clear. In many cases, a journalist’s work can have a profound impact. A powerful investigation can lead to a new law.

A story about injustice can spark a protest. This is a form of activism. But it is a form of activism that is a byproduct of the reporting. It is not the goal. The key difference is intent.

Is the journalist’s goal to inform the public? Or is their goal to change the world? Most journalists would say that their goal is to inform. But in a world full of pain and injustice, it is easy to see how those lines get blurred.

The debate is not just in the newsroom. It is in the public. Many people today get their news from sources that are not objective.

They get it from people who share their beliefs. This is a big problem. It makes it harder to find common ground.

The Path Forward

So what is the solution? There is no easy answer. The debate will continue. But it is clear that the old rules of objectivity are under review. Journalists are thinking about their role in a new way.

Perhaps the future is not about total objectivity. Perhaps it is about radical transparency. A journalist can be open about their beliefs. They can be transparent about their sources.

They can explain their methods. They can let the public judge for themselves. This is a form of journalism that is honest about its limitations. It is a form of journalism that is rooted in trust.

The debate over journalism as activism is a story about a profession in flux. It is a story about the changing role of the journalist.

It is a story about our changing relationship with the truth. It is a question that we all have to answer. What is the purpose of the story? Is it to inform, or is it to change?