Talk:Advocacy journalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
 To-do list for Advocacy journalism: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
|
|
| Priority 4 | |
Contents |
[edit] Stub skepticism
I think this stub is very POV and should be deleted. I think the writer has confused and conflated public relations, publicity and editorializing with what he or she has labled "Advocacy Journalism." The term is self-contradictory and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what journalism is and what the standards and ethical codes of journalists are centered on. Calicocat 16:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, whether or not we agree with them, there's a substantial number of advocacy journalists, at least in the US, who have a substantial audience. Many of these you can find under alternative media (though not all of the publications there adhere to any published or unpublished standards for accuracy, etc.) Pick up an alternative weekly, and you may find an article by an independent journalist - not a publicist or spokesperson for a cause - which purports to be accurate but which is also clearly pushing a cause and a point of view. Journalists who adhere to mainstream standards would view this as bad journalism, but the alternative crowd affirmatively rejects that view. Some people believe that there's no such thing as objectivity, and that the mainstream media are only fooling themselves and their audiences in pretending that there is. The alternative solution they propose is simply to fully expose biases to the reader, rather than trying to hide them as much as possible. In other circles, objectivity may be put aside not because it doesn't exist, but because it's unnecessary or because it gets in the way of the purpose of the writer. For example, many mainstream journalists do investigative reports on waste, corruption, and scandals in government, while attempting to remain neutral. Advocacy journalists may prefer instead to adopt a clear political opinion, or style themselves as crusaders against a particular form of waste, corruption, or abuse.
- Objectivity is sometimes proposed as necessary to prevent the reader from distrusting the author, or being annoyed by the writing too much to get much out of it. Advocacy journalists often assume that the read will share their biases (especially in politically charged alternative media), or will simply keep them in mind while evaluating what are supposed to be well-researched and persuasive facts.
- I attended a journalism conference in the mid 1990s in Western Massachusetts, and I can assure you that "advocacy journalism" was creating a big stir among professional journalists there at the time. Some local publications were using advocacy journalism standards, rejecting objectivity as a goal but retaining other journalistic standards. There were also people from more "mainstream" publications there. Some of them worried that advocacy journalism would undermine their own work, or lead to public confusion or the spread of biased or incorrect information. Others saw mainstream journalism and advocacy journalism as distinct and perhaps complementary genres, which the public could satisfactorily distinguish between. -- Beland 02:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- Since seeing this term here, I, too, did a bit of research and find it being applied mostly to the so called "alternative press." I find the term unconvincing and specious. If it's advocacy it's not journalism; if it's journalism, it's not advocacy. The term is a self-contradiction, oxymornic, utterly illogical and sounds like a construct designed to confuse people, perhaps becoming a blanket ad hominem for any media outlet that covers a story some special interest doesn't like, a way of dismissing the uncomfortable.. There is objective truth, there are facts, these things do exist and it is philosophically and intellectually dishonest to say they do not. If one wants to read Mother Jones or the National Review, that's all a matter of choice and each of those publications cover things of interest to their readers' political outlook. Again, the term seems to be designed to cause public confusion and perhaps advance the cause of a particular faction in whose interest it may be to "take down" the press by fostering distrust and consternation with this indefensibly oxymoronic, even hypocritical term. I find the term itself to smack of an anti-press POV. The only thing I'm left with is the question of who dreamt up the term "advocacy journalism," who invented it and whose interests is it backing? I could speculate about that, but I'll leave that out for the time being... Thanks for your extended comments. Calicocat 04:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Major expansion
So I slapped together a poorly researched article, which promotes this article from a stub to a page needing attention, more in some parts than others. I removed the NPOV tag, because I included material explaining the common criticisms of advocacy journalism. Please feel free to read the new article and edit or tag as you see fit. -- Beland 04:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, and I'm sure that the prose could be edited for better flow and organization. -- Beland 05:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Term: Advocacy Journalism
This is one of those times when a library card would be helpful. The term "Advocacy Journalism" is decades old and used both in journalism reviews and in the teaching of journalism. It represents journalism that does not profess objectivity but does aspire to fairness and accuracy. Prior to the move to professionalize the print press, advocacy journalism was the norm. Muckrakers are an example of the form: Nellie Bly, Ida M. Tarbell, Lincoln Steffens, Upton Sinclair, George Seldes, I.F. Stone.--Cberlet 12:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Recent lead revisions
I've liked how this article has developed but felt it needed more clarity and expansion. While I somewhat liked the previous lead I felt it wasn't exactly hitting the mark. I thought use of a hypothetical was a fitting device to explain advocacy journalism in its primary context, i.e., reporting in the public interest which is yet suspending some of what journalist mean when they use objectivity, or editorializing on the news page. I like the article's internal structure, flowing naturally from the simple to the complex, closing with matters of ontology, human perception, philosophy. I look back over my early comments and discussion and see that there's been a lot of good work done to improve this article, I hope my contribution is seen favorably. I looked over many comments made before including this edit. The changes I've made were done after careful thought. As I was editing, I was took note to also remove weasel words and generally language that sounded overly tentative or vague. I have tried to increase specificity and accuracy. My best, Calicocat 06:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] PNAC - 1st exposure to "advocacy journalism"
I had never heard this term until I saw it on the Project for a New American Century website. They did not give a definition for it although they do acknowlege that they use it.
Reading the Wikipedia article, gave me the impression that this is more of a left-leaning, or alternative media tool. Even the hypothetical "example" is not 'right'. It seems to me that, after reading the article, this 'technique' is used far more by the right than the left, and the mainstream media than alternative media. The Fox News Channel, MSNBC, even CNN, and organizations like PNAC/the Bush administration appear to use this 'technique' regularly. When the former Soviet Union did this, we used to call it propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Waterflaws (talk • contribs).
[edit] to clear up some confusion
One can't claim as examples of advocacy jounalism if they violate one of if not the major rules of advocacy journalism. for example... press leaks, plame affair, white house infomercials etc. in none of these examples was the reporting being honest about it's intentions. the white house infomercials tried to pass itself off as objective journalism, the plame affair was done under the assumption of objective journalism. so that arguement that they are examples of advocacy jounalism is erroneous. and the fact that those happened argues in favor of advocacy journalism. so now it's definately POV to attribute all bad journalism to advocacy journalism.
"The U.S. government has also made use of video news releases in covert domestic propaganda campaigns. In 2004 and 2005, Jeff Gannon was given access to the whitehouse press corps with the intent that he ask questions crafted to assist the whitehouse spokesperson, Scott McClellan, and the president, to give favorable answers which were understood to be the answer to be used by media outlets advocating the Whitehouse's overall public relations plan. This is also an example of advocacy journalism."
again this was all supposed to be objective journalism.
last sentance now reads "These are examples of a highly unethical form of "advocacy journalism" trying to pass itself off as objective news". {{J}|63.246.182.108}}
[edit] Role of the media in a democractic society
There needs to be a section on this as how it pertains to this issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.246.182.108 (talk • contribs).
[edit] 'Mungo journalism'
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it also called 'Mungo' journalism in Australia? - 09:14 AET 12 April 2006
[edit] Examples of Advocacy Journalists
I think a list at the bottom of a few `advocacy journalists' would help out this article a lot. Listing activist liberal sources like Democracy Now! next to more mainstream or right-wing sources like The Economist would give some perspective and address some of the issues brought up elswhere on this talk page. Spud603 14:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
