It’s time to talk about campaign journalism, as we are massive supporters of it in news, but, as we’ll discuss, it is not common in most broadcast news, and why we think that is wrong.
Firstly, what is it.
Well, you would have seen it in newsprint, and it is where, editorially, a newspaper supports a particular viewpoint, such as a belief that a certain group of people have been wrongly convicted of something, or an individual has been wronged by an organisation in some way.
You find it less in broadcast news, because there has, at least in Europe, always been a requirement for balance and to remove bias, in as far as that is possible. But, it is also a well known doctrine that you do not need to balance facts (that approach will become important later). But how do you deal with bias?
It should be pointed out first, we are talking news, not just general factual – which is how you get programmes like Watchdog, for example.
Bias, intentional or otherwise, is the projection of one view over others, with no explanation of the position ever being given or open to debate. It is inherent in human beings, as we all have our own belief structures, in whatever form that takes, and often that belief is unshakable (even more often despite evidence to the contrary).
But viewpoints can be subjective, and data may even be interpretive (by which we mean it can be read one way or another, not just in one single obvious way). That is how we end up with partisan interpretation of data, thereafter used to undermine facts.
But there remains a very easy and honest way of dealing with bias, which is this: admit to it.
If you state the bias, openly and clearly, you’re already over the biggest hurdle, the fact it is not usually acknowledged. If you then keep it out of the headline news (unless it becomes a 100% fact), then you need merely state it, and offer counterfactual views if required. But they are not required if your bias is based upon a verifiable fact – including new evidence that is verifiable, for example.
There are risks, of course. You might not want to state new evidence is fact if it might undermine a new trial, for example. The usual safety and legal care must be taken with news in all that you do. But you can hold back on factual evidence if need be, while still campaigning based on it. (You’ll often see, in stories, “we’ve seen evidence that has caused us to change our mind on the safety of these convictions.” This safeguards the chance of a fair trial based on said new evidence, without tainting it.
So, those are our starting parameters, and how we might deal with issues. Why would we want to?
Campaigning journalism has been exceptionally important in newsprint, as it has helped free those wrongly imprisoned, restored the balance of power between individuals and behemoth organisations, and corrected wrongs of the state against individuals and groups, for example The Guildford Four, abandoned passengers wronged by airlines, The Windrush Scandal, and, still ongoing the WASPI state pension inequality campaign.
These are important matters, that journalism and the endless ‘bringing to account’ it can bring to the table can deliver for communities and humanity more generally. As such they offer something that broadcast can do well: bring the issue to light to a wide audience. Broadcast does this better than newsprint, because newsprint is often partisan in nature, whereas broadcasters, at least on paper, are supposed to be non-partisan (in the UK, at least).
One of the reasons that broadcast doesn’t tend to do the campaigning is because of accusations of so-called client journalism – that particularly nasty form of attack journalism that is in aid of something other than being honest with the audience.
But there are massive differences, and they are so fundamentally important differences that they open the way for one, while we should roundly turn on the other, and throw it out.
Client journalism is simply a dirty way of abusing media to send a message on behalf of others (usually political parties, though not exclusively) without the connection of those others to the journalist (or paper, or news channel) being divulged. It is selling out, and deceptive. It is not even journalism, rather it is PR disguised as journalism. It has no place in the news, in media more generally or a functioning democracy. It is an abomination, and the UK print media would best served by stopping it – less so their owners, of course, and therein lies the rub.
Campaigning journalism is a very different beast, however, as while it sells a viewpoint (these folk are innocent, this person has been wronged, the government are deceiving you, these women have been wrongfully denied their state pension), it is doing so from the position of statement, intent and obviousness that is both explained, and the cornerstone of its approach.
In local news, and again, this mostly applies to newsprint right now, campaign journalism is what journalism is all about. It’s about righting wrongs, putting the world right and building trust and support within communities.
We plan to be big in campaign journalism when we launch, and we hope we have explained our reasoning why well enough that you’ll be not only okay with it, but want it.
If you support us, we can start doing it sooner.
