Journalists in the United States have mostly described efforts by Donald Trump and Republicans to fight the results of the 2020 presidential election as what it is: a large-scale, shamelessly anti-democratic disinformation campaign.
Given journalists’ track record over the past five years, that could have gone differently. Instead of calling out anti-democratic behavior, they could have continued presenting the election and its aftermath as a “both sides” issue, as many did prior to the election.
I want to suggest that journalists shouldn’t commit the mistake of falling back into their pre-2016 mode of business-as-usual bothsidesism. Instead, they should base their work on democratic principles and contribute to the fortification of democracy.
Bothsidesism, or what Jay Rosen has called “the view from nowhere,” is inherently problematic. The general idea is this: Every story has more than one side, and a good journalist’s job is to present those different sides in order to tell a more complex, nuanced story.
But what sounds good in theory can prove challenging and even harmful in practice. Instead of more nuanced reporting, the view from nowhere can lead to the reduction of complexity known as “he said, she said.” In everyday political journalism, this can mean quoting both prominent Democrats and Republicans and calling it a day.
At best, this means that, instead of more voices in the news, fewer get heard. At worst, bothsidesism legitimizes illegitimate standpoints. In the context of climate change coverage, the practice of giving voice to a climate scientist as well as a climate denier has been rightfully called “balance as bias.” With an ever-radicalizing Republican Party — peddling anti-democratic voter-fraud conspiracy theories and entertaining secession fantasies, now with a QAnon supporter in their congressional ranks — presenting “both sides” as equal is not only irresponsible. It’s recklessly dangerous.
We need to rethink journalism — and, more importantly, admit that journalism built around the idea of neutrality and objectivity is inherently vulnerable to disinformation and bad faith arguments. This insight, of course, is hardly new: Stephen J. A. Ward, for example, argued for a radical rethinking of journalism ethics. And in last year’s Nieman Lab predictions, Geneva Overholser called for “death to bothsidesism.”
Indeed, the question of where journalism is heading — or, rather, should be heading — is an old one for journalism scholars. The general question in this context, then, is usually: If not objectivity and neutrality, what should journalism be built around?
Based on Rawls, Habermas, and others, the suggestion is a simple one: Build journalism around democratic values and justice.
A journalism that actually follows ethical guidelines (as opposed to, say, The New York Times’ guidelines for ethical journalism) would not only think about what voices to include but also whether including some of them is unethical. Bad-faith arguments, disinformation, and extreme speech serve no productive democratic purpose. Instead, they’re aimed at polluting the public sphere and corroding trust in the institution that is the news media.
Journalists will have to reconsider their roles, and media organizations will have to rewrite their ethical guidelines in order to put upholding democracy and promoting justice and fairness front and center. Joan Donovan and danah boyd, for example, have convincingly argued that journalists should adopt strategies such as strategic silence and strategic amplification.
This shift is especially imperative now. Donald Trump’s reign is almost over, and journalists seem eager to go back to business as usual, returning to the days when politicians and those in power could to some degree be held accountable, because they respected norms, procedure, professionalism, and public opinion. But it’s likely that those formerly in power will rediscover their opposition talking points and fake outrage (e.g., deep concern about the size of the federal debt). They’ll surface scandals old and new, block any attempts at legislating, mobilize around their supposed disenfranchisement, and present themselves as upholders of democracy. For journalists who try to return to pre-Trump normal, that will mean presenting those dangerous talking points as just another legitimate side to the story.
My hope for 2021 is that journalists resist this urge and instead guide their reporting by democratic principles that shutout anti-democratic behavior. In Germany, we sometimes argue that a democracy needs to be wehrhafte, or well-fortified. I hope that the past five years have taught journalists that their role is to contribute to democracy’s fortification and to defend it when necessary.
Jonas Kaiser is an assistant professor at Suffolk University and a faculty associate of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society.
Journalists in the United States have mostly described efforts by Donald Trump and Republicans to fight the results of the 2020 presidential election as what it is: a large-scale, shamelessly anti-democratic disinformation campaign.
Given journalists’ track record over the past five years, that could have gone differently. Instead of calling out anti-democratic behavior, they could have continued presenting the election and its aftermath as a “both sides” issue, as many did prior to the election.
I want to suggest that journalists shouldn’t commit the mistake of falling back into their pre-2016 mode of business-as-usual bothsidesism. Instead, they should base their work on democratic principles and contribute to the fortification of democracy.
Bothsidesism, or what Jay Rosen has called “the view from nowhere,” is inherently problematic. The general idea is this: Every story has more than one side, and a good journalist’s job is to present those different sides in order to tell a more complex, nuanced story.
But what sounds good in theory can prove challenging and even harmful in practice. Instead of more nuanced reporting, the view from nowhere can lead to the reduction of complexity known as “he said, she said.” In everyday political journalism, this can mean quoting both prominent Democrats and Republicans and calling it a day.
At best, this means that, instead of more voices in the news, fewer get heard. At worst, bothsidesism legitimizes illegitimate standpoints. In the context of climate change coverage, the practice of giving voice to a climate scientist as well as a climate denier has been rightfully called “balance as bias.” With an ever-radicalizing Republican Party — peddling anti-democratic voter-fraud conspiracy theories and entertaining secession fantasies, now with a QAnon supporter in their congressional ranks — presenting “both sides” as equal is not only irresponsible. It’s recklessly dangerous.
We need to rethink journalism — and, more importantly, admit that journalism built around the idea of neutrality and objectivity is inherently vulnerable to disinformation and bad faith arguments. This insight, of course, is hardly new: Stephen J. A. Ward, for example, argued for a radical rethinking of journalism ethics. And in last year’s Nieman Lab predictions, Geneva Overholser called for “death to bothsidesism.”
Indeed, the question of where journalism is heading — or, rather, should be heading — is an old one for journalism scholars. The general question in this context, then, is usually: If not objectivity and neutrality, what should journalism be built around?
Based on Rawls, Habermas, and others, the suggestion is a simple one: Build journalism around democratic values and justice.
A journalism that actually follows ethical guidelines (as opposed to, say, The New York Times’ guidelines for ethical journalism) would not only think about what voices to include but also whether including some of them is unethical. Bad-faith arguments, disinformation, and extreme speech serve no productive democratic purpose. Instead, they’re aimed at polluting the public sphere and corroding trust in the institution that is the news media.
Journalists will have to reconsider their roles, and media organizations will have to rewrite their ethical guidelines in order to put upholding democracy and promoting justice and fairness front and center. Joan Donovan and danah boyd, for example, have convincingly argued that journalists should adopt strategies such as strategic silence and strategic amplification.
This shift is especially imperative now. Donald Trump’s reign is almost over, and journalists seem eager to go back to business as usual, returning to the days when politicians and those in power could to some degree be held accountable, because they respected norms, procedure, professionalism, and public opinion. But it’s likely that those formerly in power will rediscover their opposition talking points and fake outrage (e.g., deep concern about the size of the federal debt). They’ll surface scandals old and new, block any attempts at legislating, mobilize around their supposed disenfranchisement, and present themselves as upholders of democracy. For journalists who try to return to pre-Trump normal, that will mean presenting those dangerous talking points as just another legitimate side to the story.
My hope for 2021 is that journalists resist this urge and instead guide their reporting by democratic principles that shutout anti-democratic behavior. In Germany, we sometimes argue that a democracy needs to be wehrhafte, or well-fortified. I hope that the past five years have taught journalists that their role is to contribute to democracy’s fortification and to defend it when necessary.
Jonas Kaiser is an assistant professor at Suffolk University and a faculty associate of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society.
Marissa Evans Putting community trauma into context
C.W. Anderson Journalism changed under Trump — will it keep changing under Biden?
Kevin D. Grant Parachute journalism goes away for good
Joanne McNeil Newsrooms push back against Ivy League cronyism
Jean Friedman-Rudovsky and Cassie Haynes A shift from conversation to action
Parker Molloy The press will risk elevating a Shadow President Trump
Gonzalo del Peon Collaborations expand from newsrooms to the business side
Andrew Ramsammy Stop being polite and start getting real
Gordon Crovitz Common law will finally apply to the Internet
John Ketchum More journalists of color become newsroom founders
Jesse Holcomb Genre erosion in nonprofit journalism
John Davidow Reflect and repent
Jer Thorp Fewer pixels, more cardboard
Ben Collins We need to learn how to talk to (and about) accidental conspiracists
Sarah Marshall The year audiences need extra cheer
Danielle C. Belton A decimated media rededicates itself to truth
Marie Shanahan Journalism schools stop perpetuating the status quo
Ryan Kellett The bundle gets bundled
Jody Brannon People won’t renew
Stefanie Murray and Anthony Advincula Expect to see more translations and non-English content
Cindy Royal J-school grads maintain their optimism and adaptability
Talmon Joseph Smith The media rejects deficit hawkery
Zizi Papacharissi The year we rebuild the infrastructure of truth
David Chavern Local video finally gets momentum
José Zamora Walking the talk on diversity
Raney Aronson-Rath To get past information divides, we need to understand them first
Tanya Cordrey Declining trust forces publishers to claim (or disclaim) values
Hossein Derakhshan Mass personalization of truth
Annie Rudd Newsrooms grow less comfortable with the “view from above”
Tauhid Chappell and Mike Rispoli Defund the crime beat
Brandy Zadrozny Misinformation fatigue sets in
Heidi Tworek A year of news mocktails
David Skok A pandemic-prompted wave of consolidation
Jacqué Palmer The rise of the plain-text email newsletter
Rishad Patel From direct-to-consumer to direct-to-believers
Jonas Kaiser Toward a wehrhafte journalism
Nikki Usher Don’t expect an antitrust dividend for the media
Alyssa Zeisler Holistic medicine for journalism
Logan Jaffe History as a reporting tool
Doris Truong Indigenous issues get long-overdue mainstream coverage
Rachel Schallom The rise of nonprofit journalism continues
Garance Franke-Ruta Rebundling content, rebuilding connections
Celeste Headlee The rise of radical newsroom transparency
Ariane Bernard Going solo is still only a path for the few
Benjamin Toff Beltway reporting gets normal again, for better and for worse
María Sánchez Díez Traffic will plummet — and it’ll be ok
John Garrett A surprisingly good year
Delia Cai Subscriptions start working for the middle
Aaron Foley Diversity gains haven’t shown up in local news
Sarah Stonbely Videoconferencing brings more geographic diversity
Anthony Nadler Journalism struggles to find a new model of legitimacy
Matt DeRienzo Citizen truth brigades steer us back toward reality
Joni Deutsch Local arts and music make journalism more joyous
Kawandeep Virdee Goodbye, doomscroll
Andrew Donohue The rise of the democracy beat
Errin Haines Let’s normalize women’s leadership
Jim Friedlich A newspaper renaissance reached by stopping the presses
Rachel Glickhouse Journalists will be kinder to each other — and to themselves
Moreno Cruz Osório In Brazil, a push for pluralism
Kristen Muller Engaged journalism scales
Robert Hernandez Data and shame
Sara M. Watson Return of the RSS reader
Marcus Mabry News orgs adapt to a post-Trump world (with Trump still in it)
Ben Werdmuller The web blooms again
Pablo Boczkowski Audiences have revolted. Will newsrooms adapt?
Natalie Meade Journalism enters rehab
Meredith D. Clark The year journalism starts paying reparations
Jessica Clark News becomes plural
Juleyka Lantigua The download, podcasting’s metric king, gets dethroned
Brian Moritz The year sports journalism changes for good
Masuma Ahuja We’ll remember how interconnected our world is
Astead W. Herndon The Trump-sized window of the media caring about race closes again
Rodney Gibbs Zooming beyond talking heads
Tamar Charney Public radio has a midlife crisis
Victor Pickard The commercial era for local journalism is over
Catalina Albeanu Publish less, listen more
Alfred Hermida and Oscar Westlund The virus ups data journalism’s game
Pia Frey Building growth through tastemakers and their communities
A.J. Bauer The year of MAGAcal thinking
Nonny de la Pena News reaches the third dimension
Patrick Butler Covid-19 reporting has prepared us for cross-border collaboration
Edward Roussel Tech companies get aggressive in local
Janet Haven and Sam Hinds Is this an AI newsroom?
Chicas Poderosas More voices mean better information
Cherian George Enter the lamb warriors
Candis Callison Calling it a crisis isn’t enough (if it ever was)
Nico Gendron Ask your readers to help build your products
Rick Berke Virtual events are here to stay
Samantha Ragland The year of journalists taking initiative
Charo Henríquez A new path to leadership
Amara Aguilar Journalism schools emphasize listening
Francesco Zaffarano The year we ask the audience what it needs
Megan McCarthy Readers embrace a low-information diet
Alicia Bell and Simon Galperin Media reparations now
Mike Ananny Toward better tech journalism
Joshua P. Darr Legislatures will tackle the local news crisis
Imaeyen Ibanga Journalism gets unmasked
Sam Ford We’ll find better ways to archive our work
Jennifer Brandel A sneak peak at power mapping, 2073’s top innovation
Francesca Tripodi Don’t expect breaking up Google and Facebook to solve our information woes
John Saroff Covid sparks the growth of independent local news sites
Mark S. Luckie Newsrooms and streaming services get cozy
Mandy Jenkins You build trust by helping your readers
Kate Myers My son will join every Zoom call in our industry
Christoph Mergerson Black Americans will demand more from journalism
Linda Solomon Wood Canada steps up for journalism
Mariano Blejman It’s time to challenge autocompleted journalism
Jeremy Gilbert Human-centered journalism
Sue Cross A global consensus around the kind of news we need to save
Ernie Smith Entrepreneurship on rails
Steve Henn Has independent podcasting peaked?
Eric Nuzum Podcasting dodged a bullet in 2020, but 2021 will be harder
Shaydanay Urbani and Nancy Watzman Local collaboration is key to slowing misinformation
Nicholas Jackson Blogging is back, but better
Chase Davis The year we look beyond The Story
Laura E. Davis The focus turns to newsroom leaders for lasting change
Taylor Lorenz Journalists will learn influencing isn’t easy
Whitney Phillips Facts are an insufficient response to falsehoods
Renée Kaplan Falling in love with your subscription
Don Day Business first, journalism second
Mike Caulfield 2021’s misinformation will look a lot like 2020’s (and 2019’s, and…)
Tonya Mosley True equity means ownership
Gabe Schneider Another year of empty promises on diversity
Michael W. Wagner Fractured democracy, fractured journalism
Beena Raghavendran Journalism gets fused with art
Anna Nirmala Local news orgs grasp the urgency of community roots
Mark Stenberg The rise of the journalist-influencer
Richard Tofel Less on politics, more on how government works (or doesn’t)
Ashton Lattimore Remote work helps level the playing field in an insular industry
Rasmus Kleis Nielsen Stop pretending publishers are a united front
Sonali Prasad Making disaster journalism that cuts through the noise
Sumi Aggarwal News literacy programs aren’t child’s play
Colleen Shalby The definition of good journalism shifts
Ariel Zirulnick Local newsrooms question their paywalls
Hadjar Benmiloud Get representative, or die trying
Nisha Chittal The year we stop pivoting
Julia Angwin Show your (computational) work
Bo Hee Kim Newsrooms create an intentional and collaborative culture
M. Scott Havens Traditional pay TV will embrace the disruption
Ståle Grut Network analysis enters the journalism toolbox
Bill Adair The future of fact-checking is all about structured data
Burt Herman Journalists build post-Facebook digital communities
Jennifer Choi What have we done for you lately?
Ray Soto The news gets spatial
Julia B. Chan and Kim Bui Millennials are ready to run things
Nabiha Syed Newsrooms quit their toxic relationships
Matt Skibinski Misinformation won’t stop unless we stop it
Loretta Chao Open up the profession
Cory Bergman The year after a thousand earthquakes
Kerri Hoffman Protecting podcasting’s open ecosystem
J. Siguru Wahutu Journalists still wrongly think the U.S. is different