The Journalism of Affirmation emphasizes arguing from one particular side instead of prizing journalistic independence. This new form of journalism emerged in the early 2000s on talk radio and cable news, according to Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel. Preconceived notions are reinforced, and entire perspectives are often ignored or misconstrued.
Sandra Korn, a senior at Harvard University, wrote an editorial for the Harvard Crimson. In her editorial, Korn said, “When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.”
Korn decried the idea of academic freedom because it allows people to express offensive ideas. She said an example of these ideas include those of professor Harvey Mansfield who has claimed “a certain ladylike modesty” can allow a woman to resist rape. While this statement may anger members of society, doesn’t Mansfield have the right to publish his research and ideas? The United States is a nation that prizes the marketplace of ideas, but this sharing would be greatly threatened if opposing viewpoints were not shared.
This Harvard student does not seem to be alone in harboring these types of thoughts. A recent debate at Swarthmore between Cornel West and Robert George was controversial for some because of George’s previously expressed views about gay marriage and stem cell research.
Erin Ching, a Swarthmore sophomore, was critical of the debate.
“What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion. I don’t think we should be tolerating [George’s] conservative views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society,” Ching said. “We should not be conceding to the dominant culture by saying that the so-called ‘progressive left’ is marginalizing the conservative.”
Kovach and Rosenstiel declared that journalists must provide information, so the public can be free and self-governing. In addition, they explained how a journalist’s first obligation is to truth. Isn’t only one perspective or side going against these principles?
Fox News has been criticized for claiming to be fair and balanced when coverage tends to favor the right of center and conservatives. Bill O’Reilly was critical of Korn’s perspective.
It is important to note that O’Reilly is not a Fox reporter; he is a commentator. People watch the “O’Reilly Factor” to hear his opinions on current events and political issues. If people want to hear a more liberal perspective, they have the opportunity to watch “Hardball with Chris Matthews.”
Ultimately, people need the ability to hear from various perspectives. If a viewer only ever listened to O’Reilly or Matthews, their views would likely be extremely skewed. Journalists have an obligation to include material and quotes from both sides. However, this does not mean that each side must be heard from equally because this leads to a sense of false equivalency.
The journalism of affirmation, as demonstrated by this example, raises questions about news ethics. How much emphasis should be placed on objectivity and fairness? How does this vary for hard news versus opinion journalism? Questions also arise about rhetoric and appeals to readers and viewers through emotion or logic. Are these appeals degrading to the field of journalism?
Journalism of affirmation has also been referred to as a corporate strategy. As economic forces continue to impact journalism, is the journalism of affirmation the way of the future?
Cassie Vangellow
cvangellow@ufl.edu
Vangellow, Cassie 