On political activism by journalists: Objectivity, neutrality and the fiduciary role of the media

Abstract

In 2023, BBC sports presenter Gary Lineker was suspended for breaching neutrality and objectivity of the public broadcaster after criticizing the UK government’s immigration policy on his personal Twitter account. In 2017, BBC science presenter Adam Rutherford was reprimanded for tweeting criticism of climate-sceptic Labour MP Graham Stringer. In 1989, Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times Supreme Court reporter, was criticized by editors for participating in a pro-choice protest, seen as compromising the paper’s neutrality. These responses reflect the guidelines by media ethics codes that prohibit journalists’ political activism on the grounds that it undermines objectivity, the profession’s core principle. Objectivity, understood as a commitment to truth-seeking, has been equated with neutrality: the idea that journalists should not commit to a view, should give equal weight to all sides of a contentious issue, and avoid value judgments. On this view, political activism signals a commitment to a view; expressing a commitment to a view undermines neutrality, hence, objectivity. This paper challenges the prohibition of political activism by journalists and develops its qualified defense. It focuses on public news media (news and current affairs programs), excluding forms of journalism not bound by neutrality (op-eds or polemical content). After briefly considering whether journalists’ off-duty political activism can be defended as a matter of their right to privacy, I turn to the conceptual relationship between objectivity, neutrality, and political activism. I argue that neutrality has been wrongly conflated with objectivity. The requirement of objectivity is motivated by the news media’s political role in democratic society, specifically, its unique position in staging the platform for political communication. To clarify this role, I bring together recent work in democratic theory and fiduciary political theory to propose a new account of the political role of the media. I argue that the media stand in a fiduciary relationship to the public in virtue of de facto discretionary power they exercise over public’s critical interest: the maintenance of well-ordered political communication. Objectivity is a fiduciary duty the news media acquire in this capacity. As a condition for well-ordered political communication, objectivity is informed by epistemic and democratic values. From this perspective, the news media should not remain neutral, for example, between truth and falsehood or between discrimination and equality. If the news media cannot and should not be neutral, even if they must be objective, then the argument against political activism by journalists collapses. This opens the door to reconsider its permissibility. I argue that political activism by journalists can be a legitimate way of fulfilling their fiduciary duties. My defense of the permissibility of political activism is qualified. I propose an alternative justification for journalistic neutrality that does not rely on objectivity. This sets limits on the permissibility of political activism.