The blurred lines between Advocacy, Activism and Journalism

The three proponents of social change, advocacy, activism and journalism are often conjoined in their efforts. In a digital age of information democratisation, the boundaries between the three are increasingly blurred. While all three forms of information sharing ideally work in public interest, the values, extent, risk and means vary to different degrees.

Advocacy is a structured, internal attempt to influence systems on public opinion, often through education, policy changes, lobbying, etc. Activism, on the other hand, is a direct, often confrontational action to influence systems externally, such as protests, strikes or boycotts. Traditional journalism engages with topics in neutral, objective viewpoint, only providing perspectives and facts. Yet, advocacy journalism and media activism are avenues where we can see common intersections of these themes. The press uses its power to support public interest, social issues and its tools to challenge mainstream narratives and organise change.

The most common critique of this form of journalism, is the lack of objectivity. Contrarily, experts argue that the subjectivity of truth can be wielded either for or against public good. We see this used against the people through media propaganda, and thus ethical pursuits of subjective reportage can influence effective social change.

While drawing distinctions between the three, we must pose a few questions. Who makes the distinction between the three? And does this distinction benefit the press fraternity in a world where activists, journalists and advocacy groups are codependent? These will help us clearly analyse the interplay of our topics in today’s world.

Social media has opened up spaces for many common folk to participate in information sharing through blogs and other online media. This makes journalism harder to define. Traditional journalists feel this undermines the integrity of the profession while also making news reporting difficult, because it is harder to distinguish professional journalists from advocates or activists. However, allowing the government to make these differentiations would lead to larger state influence and branding of critiques of government policy as activism. In some cases, further arbitrary policies may be formed infringing on the freedom of expression. Thus, these distinctions must be made by journalists themselves, incorporating positives of both field while maintaining journalistic values.

Considering overlaps between these three topics in the digital age, we might look at WikiLeaks as an anti-secrecy advocacy group, that released a video which contained proof of the murder of two Reuters journalists by the US army. This was provided by low level intelligence analyst and was a major addition to the Iraqi war coverage. However, the means through which the information was collected, or rather the general working of WikiLeaks, did not obey journalistic ethics. In the case of the Tahrir Square uprising in Egypt, there was heavy information blockade within the country, and professional journalists were in the pockets of the government. A small group of independent journalists working with bloggers and activists were those who broke the said blockade.

These examples clearly display how these forces working together benefit the end goal of information dissemination. While it is vital for journalists to maintain the ethics that separate them from activist or advocacy groups; ensuring that the rights and access is granted to those of the press fraternity, are maintained across all those who gather news, share opinions and share information is also a crucial responsibility. These rights are protected under the umbrella of freedom of expression and any infringement upon it, would only fuel a cascading effect across all fields. We must allow for a diverse set of approaches to coexist healthy criticisms and ethical boundaries between related fields, builds a stronger and democratic press society.