A round table on the relationship between journalism and activism at the Annual Congress of the Professional Federation of Journalists of Quebec sparked a timely debate on journalistic objectivity and the conditions of public confidence in news journalism.
Democratic societies are going through a crisis of public reason, in the sense that what the Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant called “the public use of reason” is in recession. Contemporaries are no dumber than their predecessors, but the current structure of the public sphere does not favor the use of reason in the conduct of public debate.
One of the solutions to this crisis of public reason is the rehabilitation of reliable sources of information and vectors of knowledge and reason.
All participants in the debate accept the idea that honest and rigorous news journalism is essential to the vitality of democratic institutions.
Much has been made of the attitudes and other inner dispositions of journalists, including their beliefs, commitments and biases. This psychologizing angle of analysis is relevant but insufficient. Critics of the strict separation between activist commitments and journalistic work are right to point out that a journalist’s mind is never a blank slate. When he begins a new investigation, he cannot make a clean sweep of his previous conscious or unconscious mental states. The human mind just doesn’t work that way.
The strongest argument for building a dividing wall between news journalism and activism rests on the need to distinguish between social spheres in the light of their functions and purposes.
The good sources
Human beings, especially in highly complex societies, all find themselves in a situation of radical epistemic dependence. It is simply impossible to be perfectly independent when we form the vast majority of our beliefs. We cannot by our own means demonstrate the safety of a vaccine or know what an elected member of the National Assembly said if we did not follow the exchanges.
The testimonies of others, the reports of journalists and the publication of the results of scientific studies are necessary for the acquisition of the vast majority of knowledge that we need to lead our lives. It is all very well to “do your own research”, but the main thing, as the so-called “reliability” theory in epistemology wants it, is to have the capacity to find the right sources and to evaluate their credibility.
Along with science, news journalism is arguably the institution we depend on most for access to the facts of social reality. It is fundamental that we can rely on it. This confidence cannot rest entirely on the personal dispositions of journalists. The media must structure their activities in such a way as to guarantee the highest level of objectivity in the content they broadcast.
Organizations and individuals have different kinds of interests. Media outlets whose primary purpose is truly news reporting must adopt high standards that promote rigor and objectivity. This includes rules to avoid conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts of interest. It also includes rules and incentives encouraging rigor and impartiality among reporters.
The citizen must have as few reasons as possible to believe that the treatment of news is motivated by interests that diverge from the most faithful possible description of the facts.
It is in this context that the establishment of a dividing wall between news journalism and activism is desirable. The idea is not to assert that the reporter is incapable of separating things and distinguishing his commitments from his journalistic work. It is rather that gender confusion is to be avoided when it comes to certain spheres of power, including, for example, public administration, the judiciary and journalism.
Occupying one of these social functions requires respect for a duty of reserve. A judge may have supported causes or a political party in the past. When she becomes a magistrate, she must refrain from expressing political convictions in order to clearly mark the independence of the judiciary.
Critics of the separation between reporting and activism are right to say that facts and values are often intertwined. The decision to devote more resources to the climate crisis and not treat Holocaust denial as a rational and justified position is both based on science and a value judgment about the importance of addressing global warming.
However, this does not imply that everything is permitted. Journalists have to cover a myriad of news and controversies day in and day out. It is imperative that the media put themselves first and foremost at the service of discovering the facts. The way out of the crisis of public reason also passes through the recognition of the epistemic authority and reliability of journalism. Powerful media here and elsewhere flout journalistic standards in the name of their financial and ideological interests.
Public opinion already saturates public discourse. We must resist the colonization by the opinion of the few social institutions dedicated to the discovery of reality and the communication of facts.