Journalism schools in the 20th and 21st centuries have typically taught the foundations of responsible reporting and reinforced professional standards. Underpinning these standards is the idea that ethical reporting is neutral, objective, and unbiased.
Somewhere along the way, an alternate approach took hold: advocacy journalism.
Advocacy journalism, as The SAGE Encyclopedia of Journalism puts it, “rejects the separation of news and opinion that characterizes contemporary journalistic norms. While still rooted in gathering, organizing, and presenting reliable information, the advocacy journalist is openly trying to make a case, rather than attempting objectivity.”
Interestingly, this genre of journalism sits on the opposite side of what we do at AllSides: providing balanced news coverage without privileging any particular interpretation or subjective opinion.
But there are nuances: when a story involves clear harm toward a group, a documented pattern of injustice, or a community that’s been historically ignored, some journalists argue that taking a stance is part of exposing the truth.
In those cases, they see it as the media's role to shape public understanding, choosing what they see as the most meaningful and important facts, even if the approach appears biased.
Advocacy journalists may also argue that there’s no such thing as “objective” reporting in the first place, since the very act of choosing what information to cover is subjective.
Most news outlets don’t explicitly label their reports as advocacy journalism on their websites. But there are some common indicators of it to look for.
When you look at Fox News’ (Right bias) “About” section, it says it offers “in-depth news reporting, along with opinion and analysis encompassing the principles of free people… diversity of thought, as an alternative to the left-of-center offerings of the news marketplace.” That verbiage signals a clear ideological position, even though the term “advocacy” is nowhere on the site.
You see similar cues with alt news outlets like DailyKos (Left bias). Its mission says it shares “stories and analysis to inform readers about hard-hitting issues that matter to progressives, and our activism team provides tools like petitions and letter writing campaigns,” among other things. Using terms like “progressives” makes the orientation clear — the site is employing a journalistic style that advocates for issues that matter to people on that part of the political spectrum.
A Reporter’s Take on Advocacy Journalism
As a former reporter with more than a decade of experience, I can still recall an interview for an editor position at a media outlet that practiced advocacy journalism — a news site that will remain nameless here.
One of the more consequential questions, at least I thought for my chances, was whether I was familiar with advocacy journalism. At the time, I honestly hadn’t heard the term used much in newsrooms.
Other outlets I’d worked for sometimes openly labeled themselves as progressive, and others leaned more conservative, but I hadn’t really encountered the idea of advocacy journalism as a formal approach to journalism.
My confidence took a hit when I realized I hadn’t thought much about how to edit or guide stories with the goal of raising awareness for a specific cause, human rights or social issues.
Don’t get me wrong, I was interested in holding powerful institutions and figures accountable, but I naturally defaulted to fairness: gathering comments from both sides of an issue and trying to give readers a full picture. If that meant covering issues affecting underrepresented communities, I was all for it. But intentionally pushing for a particular agenda or cause was new territory for me.
Needless to say, I didn’t get the job.
Advocacy journalism often goes against the core foundations taught in journalism programs across the country, but it can still serve a purpose when it’s used ethically.
Communities that otherwise wouldn’t get coverage can be heard through outlets that focus on topics they care about. These media platforms can challenge dominant narratives and push for reforms in institutions that many people believe need major change. As long as media organizations are transparent about their missions, I think there’s room for both approaches in the broader news ecosystem.
The Good Side of Advocacy Journalism
At its core, journalism seeks to hold power to account. An “advocacy” focus is biased, but can still function as “journalism” by:
- Covering viewpoints and communities that would otherwise be underrepresented
- Spurring social change by calling out issues and inequities
- Being transparent about bias and agendas; advocacy journalism has a particular viewpoint
The Bad Side
But advocacy is not an excuse for inaccuracy. Effective advocacy journalism must still be factually rigorous. If a reporter ignores conflicting facts or spreads misinformation to support their cause, they can easily slip from journalism to propaganda.
It’s perfectly fine to have a stance. Everyone is biased, even journalists. The issues arise when journalists ignore their own biases.
Transparency is paramount in all journalism, and especially advocacy journalism. When reporters pretend to be neutral while pushing an agenda, they break the most basic contract they have with the reader. And, as evidenced by many recent studies of audience trust in media, readers have little tolerance for media manipulation disguised as objectivity.
Advocacy journalism pushes a particular stance. If it’s done with honesty about the intentions and clarity about the organization’s mission, it’s not a problem. But often, that stance is presented as the only option, or framed as neutral, objective fact, rather than another viewpoint for the reader to consider.
How to Spot Advocacy Journalism
Advocacy journalism is perfectly fine if transparent. But that’s a big “if.” Many outlets do a poor job of separating news and opinion content, which is why we have our own content-labeling system.
An excellent article from Journalism UK denotes some telltale signs of advocacy journalism. It includes “research as a Trojan horse,” “experts who aren't independent” and “emotional case studies positioned as evidence.”
“Sophisticated advocacy organisations have evolved far beyond crude press releases,” explains Marcela Kunova of Journalism UK. “They now produce research that mimics independent analysis, package it with emotional hooks, and deliver it in formats designed to slip seamlessly into editorial workflows.”
One of the most common that Kunova mentions, one we see often at AllSides, is when journalists issue “prescriptive conclusions.”
“The research doesn't just report findings, it tells you what should happen next,” Kunova describes. “Policymakers ‘must act.’ Companies ‘need to’ do something. Journalists ‘should’ cover issues differently.”
Objective journalism doesn’t tell you how to act or think or feel. That’s for you to decide.
Use our Types of Media Bias guide to spot spin, slant, sensationalism and more manifestations of bias in real time.
–
Issac Morgan is a news editor for AllSides. He has a Center bias. Editor-in-chief Henry A. Brechter contributed to the writing of this piece.
Reviewed by Product Manager Evan Wagner (Lean Left bias) and Director of Communications Julie Mastrine (Lean Right).
