Here is a column where I will not make friends, neither left nor right. Too bad, “ordinary” readers should find their way around.
Lately there was talk of militant journalism, which some already practice in different media. It is a question, mainly for young journalists, of advancing causes in which they believe through their work, whether they are environmental, social, feminist issues, diversity, education, etc., even if it means privileging certain facts. and data and to omit others. This type of committed journalism was the subject of an eventful workshop at the recent congress of the Professional Federation of Journalists of Quebec (FPJQ), and of an update by François Cardinal.1 Elon Musk, the master of Twitter, called in a tweet for “citizen journalism”, which he opposes to media elitism.
For some, this practice represents the engaged future. For others, it is heresy, because the journalist must shed objective light on the facts so that the citizen can form his own judgment. Militant journalism is sometimes moralistic, propaganda is not far behind. It gives ammunition to skeptics who mistrust the media and who believe that the press is in the pay of Capital and Power.
This type of journalism can put off, but come to think of it… nuances are essential.
First, because more than ever, citizens must sort through and draw on several media sources. It is difficult to adhere to this Manichean vision of things, where legendary objectivity is opposed to virtuous militancy.
Because today, in ALL the media, the commentary triumphs. It is often the work of ex-politicians, members of public relations firms. They have clients or friends not to offend. The media mainstream all have, well yes, their share of activists soft (insert the name of your favorite Turk’s head here).
Proselytism also exists. Several major media belong to, or defend specific interests, on the left AS well as on the right. It goes from the multicultural agenda to identity. These groups have objectives, a line of thought, even political aims. They are neither neutral nor objective. For example, CBC invited its news workers to take part in an activity commemorating residential schools. A line has been blithely crossed here. Information is necessary, but activism, when practiced by a public institution, is particularly pernicious.
Activism is already expressed in nested journals. Even if their weight is not very substantial, they exist. As for social networks, militant opinions abound there, which colors our general appreciation of certain issues and shapes and transforms our outlook, for better or for worse. Social networks are echo chambers, it has been emphasized enough. We find there opinions which confirm our own and which gradually lead us to find traditional information bland and timorous, which is a decoy.
Presenting militant journalists as the gravediggers of pure information is not wrong, but at the same time, let’s face it, a bit biased.
In-depth journalistic work, with investigations, correspondents, reporters in the field, data collected, analyzed and in-depth, is expensive and takes time, which the immediacy of the time hates. The times are at broil. It’s been years now that the traditional media have partly given way, opening up more and more space to opinion makers (including myself), who cost less and bring more, in the short term, than the work of in-depth information , the one that is the basis of all the rest. Less entertaining, on the other hand, but which is, more than ever, the basis of informed choices in a democracy.
We can regret a mythical golden age of journalism tending towards objectivity, but not by blaming all the blame on young militant journalists or, above all, by turning a blind eye to the issues of power that motivate certain press groups and by make real militant groups.
Activist journalism not only is here to stay, but through exuberant commentary, mainstream media has somehow accelerated its social acceptability. Curious paradox, in an era itself militant.
Let’s stop playing offended virgins. But let’s not be fooled. Let us know that with press organs defending strong ideological colors and militant journalists with raised visors for specific causes, the media give ammunition to those who distrust them, who challenge them, who cry out to fake news as soon as a journalist or a commentator (for them, it’s the same) does not agree with them. And that they represent a growing percentage of our fellow citizens…