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.
Kate Myers My son will join every Zoom call in our industry
Shaydanay Urbani and Nancy Watzman Local collaboration is key to slowing misinformation
Pablo Boczkowski Audiences have revolted. Will newsrooms adapt?
Zizi Papacharissi The year we rebuild the infrastructure of truth
Kevin D. Grant Parachute journalism goes away for good
Rasmus Kleis Nielsen Stop pretending publishers are a united front
John Davidow Reflect and repent
M. Scott Havens Traditional pay TV will embrace the disruption
Joni Deutsch Local arts and music make journalism more joyous
Jennifer Choi What have we done for you lately?
Rodney Gibbs Zooming beyond talking heads
Heidi Tworek A year of news mocktails
Delia Cai Subscriptions start working for the middle
Loretta Chao Open up the profession
Robert Hernandez Data and shame
Danielle C. Belton A decimated media rededicates itself to truth
Ryan Kellett The bundle gets bundled
Renée Kaplan Falling in love with your subscription
Pia Frey Building growth through tastemakers and their communities
Astead W. Herndon The Trump-sized window of the media caring about race closes again
Andrew Ramsammy Stop being polite and start getting real
Jennifer Brandel A sneak peak at power mapping, 2073’s top innovation
Matt DeRienzo Citizen truth brigades steer us back toward reality
Taylor Lorenz Journalists will learn influencing isn’t easy
John Ketchum More journalists of color become newsroom founders
Victor Pickard The commercial era for local journalism is over
Ariel Zirulnick Local newsrooms question their paywalls
Megan McCarthy Readers embrace a low-information diet
Chicas Poderosas More voices mean better information
Jessica Clark News becomes plural
Sonali Prasad Making disaster journalism that cuts through the noise
Janet Haven and Sam Hinds Is this an AI newsroom?
Raney Aronson-Rath To get past information divides, we need to understand them first
Rishad Patel From direct-to-consumer to direct-to-believers
Doris Truong Indigenous issues get long-overdue mainstream coverage
Rachel Schallom The rise of nonprofit journalism continues
Jean Friedman-Rudovsky and Cassie Haynes A shift from conversation to action
Imaeyen Ibanga Journalism gets unmasked
Julia B. Chan and Kim Bui Millennials are ready to run things
Whitney Phillips Facts are an insufficient response to falsehoods
Mariano Blejman It’s time to challenge autocompleted journalism
Jody Brannon People won’t renew
Chase Davis The year we look beyond The Story
Zainab Khan From understanding to feeling
Tauhid Chappell and Mike Rispoli Defund the crime beat
Andrew Donohue The rise of the democracy beat
Rick Berke Virtual events are here to stay
Hadjar Benmiloud Get representative, or die trying
José Zamora Walking the talk on diversity
Alicia Bell and Simon Galperin Media reparations now
Mandy Jenkins You build trust by helping your readers
Joanne McNeil Newsrooms push back against Ivy League cronyism
Candis Callison Calling it a crisis isn’t enough (if it ever was)
Errin Haines Let’s normalize women’s leadership
Tim Carmody Spotify will make big waves in video
Jonas Kaiser Toward a wehrhafte journalism
Hossein Derakhshan Mass personalization of truth
Moreno Cruz Osório In Brazil, a push for pluralism
John Garrett A surprisingly good year
Nik Usher Don’t expect an antitrust dividend for the media
Eric Nuzum Podcasting dodged a bullet in 2020, but 2021 will be harder
Ernie Smith Entrepreneurship on rails
Jim Friedlich A newspaper renaissance reached by stopping the presses
Masuma Ahuja We’ll remember how interconnected our world is
Garance Franke-Ruta Rebundling content, rebuilding connections
David Chavern Local video finally gets momentum
Juleyka Lantigua The download, podcasting’s metric king, gets dethroned
Logan Jaffe History as a reporting tool
Ståle Grut Network analysis enters the journalism toolbox
María Sánchez Díez Traffic will plummet — and it’ll be ok
Aaron Foley Diversity gains haven’t shown up in local news
Sue Cross A global consensus around the kind of news we need to save
Nisha Chittal The year we stop pivoting
Parker Molloy The press will risk elevating a Shadow President Trump
Laura E. Davis The focus turns to newsroom leaders for lasting change
Nabiha Syed Newsrooms quit their toxic relationships
Annie Rudd Newsrooms grow less comfortable with the “view from above”
Stefanie Murray and Anthony Advincula Expect to see more translations and non-English content
Talmon Joseph Smith The media rejects deficit hawkery
Marissa Evans Putting community trauma into context
Gonzalo del Peon Collaborations expand from newsrooms to the business side
Bill Adair The future of fact-checking is all about structured data
Cherian George Enter the lamb warriors
Cory Bergman The year after a thousand earthquakes
Kerri Hoffman Protecting podcasting’s open ecosystem
Marcus Mabry News orgs adapt to a post-Trump world (with Trump still in it)
Edward Roussel Tech companies get aggressive in local
Sara M. Watson Return of the RSS reader
Marie Shanahan Journalism schools stop perpetuating the status quo
Matt Skibinski Misinformation won’t stop unless we stop it
Catalina Albeanu Publish less, listen more
Colleen Shalby The definition of good journalism shifts
Francesco Zaffarano The year we ask the audience what it needs
Christoph Mergerson Black Americans will demand more from journalism
Charo Henríquez A new path to leadership
Mark S. Luckie Newsrooms and streaming services get cozy
Sarah Stonbely Videoconferencing brings more geographic diversity
Julia Angwin Show your (computational) work
Kawandeep Virdee Goodbye, doomscroll
Sumi Aggarwal News literacy programs aren’t child’s play
Ray Soto The news gets spatial
Anthony Nadler Journalism struggles to find a new model of legitimacy
Don Day Business first, journalism second
Benjamin Toff Beltway reporting gets normal again, for better and for worse
Alfred Hermida and Oscar Westlund The virus ups data journalism’s game
Ariane Bernard Going solo is still only a path for the few
David Skok A pandemic-prompted wave of consolidation
Ben Werdmuller The web blooms again
Sam Ford We’ll find better ways to archive our work
Brandy Zadrozny Misinformation fatigue sets in
John Saroff Covid sparks the growth of independent local news sites
Cindy Royal J-school grads maintain their optimism and adaptability
Patrick Butler Covid-19 reporting has prepared us for cross-border collaboration
Jacqué Palmer The rise of the plain-text email newsletter
Tanya Cordrey Declining trust forces publishers to claim (or disclaim) values
A.J. Bauer The year of MAGAcal thinking
Mark Stenberg The rise of the journalist-influencer
Sarah Marshall The year audiences need extra cheer
Beena Raghavendran Journalism gets fused with art
J. Siguru Wahutu Journalists still wrongly think the U.S. is different
Richard Tofel Less on politics, more on how government works (or doesn’t)
Mike Ananny Toward better tech journalism
Meredith D. Clark The year journalism starts paying reparations
Samantha Ragland The year of journalists taking initiative
Tonya Mosley True equity means ownership
Rachel Glickhouse Journalists will be kinder to each other — and to themselves
Amara Aguilar Journalism schools emphasize listening
Mike Caulfield 2021’s misinformation will look a lot like 2020’s (and 2019’s, and…)
Nonny de la Pena News reaches the third dimension
Burt Herman Journalists build post-Facebook digital communities
Jesse Holcomb Genre erosion in nonprofit journalism
Bo Hee Kim Newsrooms create an intentional and collaborative culture
Ashton Lattimore Remote work helps level the playing field in an insular industry
Celeste Headlee The rise of radical newsroom transparency
Alyssa Zeisler Holistic medicine for journalism
Michael W. Wagner Fractured democracy, fractured journalism
C.W. Anderson Journalism changed under Trump — will it keep changing under Biden?
Ben Collins We need to learn how to talk to (and about) accidental conspiracists
Jer Thorp Fewer pixels, more cardboard
Linda Solomon Wood Canada steps up for journalism
Natalie Meade Journalism enters rehab
Gordon Crovitz Common law will finally apply to the Internet
Joshua P. Darr Legislatures will tackle the local news crisis
Francesca Tripodi Don’t expect breaking up Google and Facebook to solve our information woes
Brian Moritz The year sports journalism changes for good
Anna Nirmala Local news orgs grasp the urgency of community roots
Kristen Muller Engaged journalism scales
Tamar Charney Public radio has a midlife crisis
Nico Gendron Ask your readers to help build your products
Gabe Schneider Another year of empty promises on diversity