such as found in science journalism, in thoughtful, non-polemical analyses of issues, or in “backgrounders” on complex public events. “Explainers” and analysis do depart from strict neutrality but they belong to the disengaged category because they tend to stay close to the facts, they attempt to represent views fairly, and they are moderate in opinion or persuasive rhetoric.
Perspectival engaged journalism: The goal is to influence public opinion, and perhaps encourage social reform, by expressing through publication certain opinions, perspectives, and arguments. A newspaper’s editorial or the opinion of a newspaper columnist are traditional examples. Investigative journalism belongs here because it rejects neutrality, while seeking deep facts below the level of press releases and political rhetoric. Interpretive journalism is found in attempts by foreign reporters to give “meaning” to complicated movements, and in magazines such as The New Yorker, and The Economist, which mix reportage and commentary. Also included are stronger forms of perspectival journalism, such as advocacy and activist journalism, and the websites of partisan or ideological groups whose writings can stray into the realm of propaganda. In this category, journalists abandon neutrality as an ideal, and they honor norms such as accuracy and fairness in varying degrees.
Active engaged journalism: The goal is not only to express views and hope they have an impact, but to act socially and politically in the public sphere. Journalism in this category departs the most from the ideals of disengaged journalism. The kinds of journalism include: (a) extreme populist groups that seek to recruit citizens to their perspective and political causes, or to vote for their leaders. This may include encouraging citizens to show up at rallies by their leaders, or to disrupt the public events of their political “enemies;” (b) participatory journalism which uses the Internet and social media to gather news, images, and eye-witness testimony from citizens around the world; and (c) civic engagement journalism where journalists encourage community activism in the hope of improving communities.
Features of the Continuum
The first feature is this: Where exactly a form of journalism should be placed on the continuum to be debated. For example, should I have placed investigative journalism before or after advocacy journalism? Why is civic journalism placed last on the continuum? It should not surprise us that precision in categorizing is difficult. Journalism is too complex an area to be divided neatly into kinds of journalism. Differences are matters of degree, and different kinds of journalism combine values in various ways. The continuum is a map of a complex terrain. The aim of the continuum is not precision in placement but to show how kinds of journalism can be roughly grouped into three categories of moral ideology.
Second, the differences between the kinds of journalism are matters of degree. Generally speaking, as one moves from left to right, we move from a journalism that is more invested in acting as a public spectator and sticking close to the “shoreline” of available facts, than in venturing out into the choppy waters of political opinion and advocacy. There is a greater degree of strict factual accuracy and pre-publication verification. As we approach the right-handed pole, there are greater amounts of hypothesizing, speculating, and theorizing. Journalists are also more active in the public sphere.
Third, the continuum helps to highlight misconceptions. For example, the continuum shows that all three forms of journalism have goals and values. Disengaged journalism, such as neutral reporting, has its own goals. The ethical point of adopting the disengaged model is to provide the public with a relativity unbiased stream of factual information. This stream of information is important because it helps to create an informed democracy. However, disengaged journalism has not always stressed that it too has goals and is engaged in society. In fact, the ideology has often implied that neutral reporters are not engaged at all. In this view, to be “engaged” was to be a political partisan or a social activist. Journalists are not, or should not be, engaged.
Fourth and finally, the continuum reminds us that certain kinds of journalism may combine norms from the three categories. For example, investigative journalists combine disengaged journalism’s stress on facts with engaged journalism’s stress on stories that prompt reform.
Section 2: Democratically Engaged Journalism
We can now approach two key questions: What is the idea of democratically engaged journalism? Where does it fit on the continuum?
The Idea
Democratically engaged journalism is journalism that uses the most rigorous and objective methods of inquiry to explain, promote, and defend democratic communities for the sake of greater flourishing among citizens, individually and as a whole. The moral ideology of democratically engaged journalism can be broken down into two large pieces: one is its ultimate goal; the other is the method or stance by which it pursues this goal.
Ultimate Goal: Dialogic Democracy
Journalists can be engaged in ways that are positive or negative, responsible or irresponsible. So, we face a choice in forms of engagement.
For democratically engaged journalism, the goal is the promotion of democracy. But there are many forms of democracy—representational, republican, parliamentary, elitist, populist, participatory.20 Democratically engaged journalism does not support all these forms. For instance, it should not support a populist democracy where demagogues use media to portray themselves as “strong” men of the people; and it should not support an elitist form of democracy marked by great inequalities.
In my view, democratically engaged journalism should support a representational, liberal democracy that is plural and egalitarian. It is open and participatory in impulse and structure, with constitutional protection for minorities from the tyranny of majorities. As Dewey argued, this form of democracy is a precondition for the richest kind of communal life and human flourishing.21
Plural, egalitarian democracy is grounded in the rule of law, division of powers, public-directed and transparent government, and core liberties for all. The process of plural democracy is robust, knowledge-based, respectful dialog, a willingness to compromise for the common good, and a readiness to test (and modify) one’s partial view of the world.22 I call this dialogic democracy. It is important that people have a meaningful opportunity to participate in crucial decisions. Yet, how they participate is also crucial. Dialogic democracy requires moderate, informed exchanges of information and views not dominated by powerful interests or intolerant voices. Dialog promotes what Rawls called a “reasonable pluralism,” a reasonable discourse among groups with different values and philosophies of life.23 Dialogic democracy is an ideal. It is valuable as a target at which to aim.
How does journalism help democratic publics exist? By influencing the flow and quality of communication in a democracy’s public sphere. Journalism can help societies make the often-difficult assent to better forms of democracy, characterized by tolerance and equality. Or, journalism can encourage intolerant communication which sends democracy into a downward spiral to discordant society.
Promoting dialogic democracy requires much more than disengaged, neutral reporting. It requires journalistic engagement in democracy. Among the tasks of democratically engaged journalism is monitoring and alerting the public to leaders or groups that could undermine a democratic “concord” among groups.
To face our troubled public sphere, journalists could “double down” on neutrally reporting just the facts, such as quoting accurately what leaders like Donald Trump say in public; or sticking unswervingly to balanced reports on crucial issues, such as immigration or climate change, where voices for non-credible and intolerant views are given equal space with credible and tolerant views. Or, journalists could become engaged as partisan activists, identifying with,
