The Future of Journalism Isn't Neutral
Journalistic integrity comes with a willingness to critique.
Russian president Vladimir Putin just spoke to Western media for the first time ever since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, in an interview with none other than ex-Fox News host Tucker Carlson. In the two-hour-long conversation, Putin expressed he does not intend to end the war with Ukraine any time soon, gave a nearly half an hour-long Russian “history lesson”, and even cracked a few jokes with the American TV journalist.
But what would have been the perfect opportunity for hard-hitting questions, turned into quite an obvious victory for Putin’s propaganda team. Carlson at no point questions Putin’s “historical claim” to Ukraine, and offers hardly any follow-up questions to the responses of the few somewhat critical questions. He asked, for example, about the American journalist Evan Gershkovich, who has been imprisoned in Russia for over a year now on so-called espionage charges. While Carlson did mention that he is “obviously not a spy”, he offered no rebuttal to Putin’s claims that Gershkovich was “caught red-handed”. Even more, Carlson asked if Putin would be open to a prisoner exchange as a “sign of decency.”
All in all, the interview was far from the hard-hitting journalism many in the field would have hoped for. But this is not surprising. Putin, of course, would never allow a journalist near him that would question or criticise him. Putin also knows that an interview with Tucker Carlson would give him access to a huge American audience to influence public opinion. In the interview, Putin undermined American democracy, calling it an “illusion”. This is instantly reminiscent of the findings of the Mueller report, which found evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. But apart from the obvious Russian propaganda goal, the interview also raises further questions on the role of journalism in today’s political landscape. Journalism was once dubbed the “Fourth Estate” - an essential pillar of democracy that exists to keep those in power in check, through advocacy and shaping public opinion. Now, that pillar seems to be crumbling, in more ways than one.
What happened to the fourth estate?
The Fourth Estate has been a term used to describe the press since as early as the 18th century when British politician Edmund Burke used the term to describe the Reporters Gallery alongside the three estates of the parliament of Britain at the time. His words were described by Thomas Carlyle in his book On Heroes and Hero Worship:
"Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.”
Today though, the term is most often alongside the three branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial. The press, in this case, is the people’s watchdog, responsible for making sure those who have power, don’t abuse it.
Tucker Carlson’s Putin interview is one of many ways in which the press is failing the principles of the Fourth Estate. Carlson is perfectly aware of the power the media has in shaping public opinion, and rather than use it for legitimate journalistic critique, he merely gave Putin a platform on which he can spew his propaganda to America. But Tucker Carlson is also not particularly known for his journalistic integrity. The issue lies where seemingly reputable news sources seem to be doing the same thing, and this is often a lot harder to catch for the everyday news consumer.
One way in which modern media has lost a sense of its watchdog responsibility, is its obsession with neutrality. The idea of objectivity in journalism has often come to mean to just display both sides of an argument, and let the readers draw their conclusions. But there is a fatal flaw in this logic: by merely parroting the words of its sources, the press often loses the element of critique, which is essential in distinguishing the journalist from any other citizen with critical thinking skills.
Presenting both sides of a narrative without critique is a false neutrality. True journalistic neutrality should come from the principle that no one is safe from investigation, regardless of their political cause. A journalist’s greatest strength is their skepticism. As Martine Caplin writes in Tribune Magazine:
“Perhaps one of the biggest threats to effective political journalism today is this denial of the reality that journalism is itself inherently political. Good journalism works on the assumption of the need to bridge the gap between those with power and those without to provide public knowledge, and as such, is grounded in suspicion of the elite.”
Overly neutral language is often used to feign objectivity. One obvious example showcasing this, has been the coverage of Israel’s ongoing assault on Gaza. It has resulted in some insane headlines. One CNN headline read: “Video shows man in military fatigues shooting mentally disabled Palestinian in West Bank”. The incredibly vague phrase “man in military fatigues” was later changed to “Israeli soldier”, following backlash. Another headline by The Washington Post reads: “Four fragile lives found ended in evacuated Gaza hospital”. This headline, of course, refers to four children who were killed by an Israeli airstrike. Both CNN and The Washington Post were fully aware that the man in military fatigues was in fact a soldier, and that the four fragile lives were children when they wrote these headlines. A danger that has come out of this false neutrality, is that it has more often favoured the Israeli narrative over any other.
But why is the Israeli narrative consistently being taken at face value? Is it not a journalist’s job to cast doubt on the words of politicians? This is where forced neutrality undermines journalism as the Fourth Estate. There has been mounting evidence of Israel’s atrocities committed against Palestinians in Gaza. Yet, the CNN continues to run its coverage past its Jerusalem bureau, which is heavily influenced by IDF censors.
also writes about this here.A story by the New York Times titled “‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7” has also garnered criticism for its failure to question evidence provided by largely discredited Israeli sources regarding sexual violence committed by Hamas on October 7. So why does the media simply regurgitate official narrative for the sake of neutrality? For one, exposing the true crimes of Israel and the IDF challenges the idea of journalistic neutrality - it forms a judgment. Murder and genocide are objectively wrong. By calling it as such, journalists would show that Israel’s invasion of Gaza is wrong. That in itself goes against this false notion of neutrality. And that is also where the industry fails itself.
Some would claim that simply the provision of a narrative, of giving it a platform constitutes a genuine objectivity. It has too often become acceptable for the press to merely present an official statement as a form of evidence, But as a Fourth Estate, the press has a duty to critique official narratives, and provide the public with the facts. Good journalism challenges the narrative of those who have power with that of those who don’t. Objectivity can exist outside of neutrality. Neutrality only serves to remove journalists from their watchdog roles. It is also weaponized against the press by claiming critique to mean bias. But true objectivity doesn’t shy away from critique if it is based in foundational evidence. A free and objective press should explicitly form an evidence-based critique, question the agendas of those in power, and be the voice of the truly oppressed. Without that voice, the press is just a middleman.
The way forward
Not only is it okay for journalists to be political, it is essential, as Martine Caplin outlines in Tribune Mag. There is nothing wrong with having a cause to fight for as a journalist. For example, choosing to report on issues that are often overlooked does not inherently lead to bias. Failure to be self-critical does, however.
Let’s circle back to Tucker Carlson’s Putin interview. Carlson himself claimed to be upholding the principles of free speech and providing a counternarrative to Western media. At the same time, Carlson is not critical in his own journalism either. This only leads to a war of truths. Both sides present their “neutral” narrative, but no one forms any kind of critique. This type of reporting is also what makes consumers increasingly distrust the media. Instead of being a voice for the people, the press becomes a microphone for those in power. And politicians like Putin are happy to use that microphone to their own benefit.
And this happens on all fronts. Many people who feel underrepresented by the media take to social media for their voices to be heard. As some say, we live in a post-truth era. And that leads people to seek out their own truths. Recently, Nicaragua was praised online for warning Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Canada of its intention to take them to the ICJ for complicity in genocide. But rarely were Nicaragua’s own crimes against its people mentioned. Nicaragua’s authoritarian government under President Daniel Ortega has committed countless human rights abuses to crack down on its critics, including murder, torture and sexual violence. But the echo chamber of social media often fails to provide this kind of self-critique. Nicaragua benefits from a public opinion victory, while its own people suffer. The same can be said about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. His open support for Palestine is praised online, while his government continues to commit crimes against Kurds, for example.
When journalists fail to uphold their responsibility to hold those in power to account, politicians will keep profiting off the very real need of underrepresented voices to be heard. Whether the press can win back its trust, we can’t know for sure. But many young journalists are starting to see the media’s false neutrality and offering counternarratives. It is up to them to bring back the true Fourth Estate.
How do you see the future of journalism? Join Friday’s discussion, or leave a comment below.
I could not agree more. As a journalist observing Western coverage of the Palestinian genocide I’ve been horrified and perplexed by this widespread obsession with ‘neutrality’.
There’s so much to unpack here (I’d love to do some deep analysis of each outlet - ultimately we need to understand news reporting from the perspective of how it is funded)
But off the top of my head - the BBC for instance considers ‘impartiality’ as a point of pride and ‘good journalism’, but it’s 75% funded by a licence fee decided by the government. Has this created the need for the BBC to try and prove its independence by becoming unhealthily attached to misguided notions of ‘balanced’ reporting ? Or the Guardian, who’s early editor was of influence in the creation of Israel, and has since published articles ‘from both perspectives’, never taking a firm stance - is this also a compensation in order not to alienate large portions of their readership (who, alongside advertisers, fund the paper) ?
The unwillingness to be political is a clear sign that a news outlet has a complicated relationship with the truth. This is deeply problematic. It must then fall on independently funded outlets or individual reporters to speak out.
Excellent piece. 👍 Critical and informative. Written with clarity following an important vision. "Good journalism challenges the narrative of those who have power with that of those who don’t."