Momnesia

What's Wrong With Advocacy Journalism?

In answer to my headline, "Nothing."

But there can be some things VERY wrong with advocacy journalists.

An advocate gives an image, a voice, and an outlet to a cause or an individual. But being an advocacy journalist is not the same as being an activist. There are lines that should never be crossed.

If your publication only spouts catchphrases, cliches, and cheerleading, you are failing at your job. For a little while, a Disney-fied version of an issue, place, or organization might be seen as fresh and uplifting.

But that's treating people like idiots. And people don't like being treated like idiots. Unless you're an advocacy journalist in favor of rainbows and flowers, your issue will encompass complex issues and road blocks. When you offer only sycophancy, your readers will find you boring, repetitious, and irrelevant to public discourse.

All journalists use the same skills, and acknowledging your biases up front allows people to lend a critical eye to your work. They'll do it anyway, so you might as well own up to it. Failing to do so will undermine the credibility of your work, and that doubt will, by proxy, extend to your issue.

Fairness and thoroughness, verified facts, and quotes from multiple sources are the hallmarks of any kind of journalism. And finally, statistics should always come from neutral sources - those unaffiliated with your own organization or cause.

In addition, advocacy journalists are honor-bound to give coverage to events and stories that don't cast their issue in the rosiest of light. Positivity is an excellent interpersonal attribute. But in journalism, it's an excellent attribute for spin doctors and - dare I say it? - liars.

For example, if a developer nearly completes a beautiful project, only to have the financing fall through, many people could write off the developer as unprofessional or inadequate. Mainstream media might point to the crumbling surrounding sites, looking at the area as a whole and making generalizations. But an advocacy journalist, working for the revitalization of an area, could examine the development project's financier and fairly reveal problems beyond the developer's control - thus saving the reputation of an area and one of the people working for its redevelopment.

In the long run, the advocacy journal will be praised for getting the scoop, sure, but also for revealing a fair and balanced approach to its own issue - thus building even more credibility for itself, and its cause.

To ignore the road blocks and struggles faced by any cause is to be ill-prepared for the future. It is also ill-prepares your readers for when reality smacks them in the face. Nothing is perfect, and all the positive press releases in the world cannot change it. But ignoring the imperfections is to close your eyes against reality - and against the real story! And as observers and reporters of the world around us, the world cannot tolerate journalists who wear blinders.

For reference, here is a link to the code of ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists.