This from @benyt’s excellent column unnerves me: “American view-from-nowhere, ‘objectivity’-obsessed, both-sides journalism is a failed experiment,” [Loury tweeted]. “We need to rebuild our industry as one that operates from a place of moral clarity.” nytimes.com/2020/06/07/bus…
The reason we are taught in j-school to strive for objectivity (impossible, of course, but worthy of our effort) is quite simply because “moral clarity” is always in the eye of the beholder. It feels obvious when your movement is ascendant, but less so when it is your opponent.
People text me that they are concerned about this privately. But I don’t think privately is going to cut it.
Some very influential voices are going to tell you, the reader, what is moral, what is racist, what is beyond the pale of acceptable conversation. And, for writers, there will be a collectively run HR department meting out punishments for transgression via social media.
Division of labor in human affairs is necessary. We need activists, and we need journalists (we also need artists and lots of other truth tellers and moral persuaders). Journalism cannot become synonymous with activism without losing its own particular mission in the process.
*misspelled "Lowery" as "Loury" in the original post.
Anyway, for the people who are dismissive of these concerns, don't think for a second it stops at journalism. It's been coming for the hard sciences and even mathematics. That will continue.
Anyway, for the people who are dismissive of these concerns, don't think for a second it stops at journalism. It's been coming for the hard sciences and even mathematics. That will continue.
Been thinking about this since yesterday. People can mockingly respond as though this is so easy. "Hmm...what is truth, really?" Was one sarcastic response I saw. How, though, do you cover an issue, say, like abortion from a position of "moral clarity" when both sides claim it?
