The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in (Advocacy) Journalism

By Mariam Traore, September 16, 2019

The point of view/perspective of the article you read is crucial to the ideas and feelings you will express. Whether its complete disagreement with what you believe in or were said in better words than you could have ever said. What about articles that don’t persuade you towards one side or the other? Do they even exist? Forms of writing that state information that intentionally relays information about social or political themes that cause persuasion, that’s advocacy journalism. As members of this society, we have constantly been exposed to articles and news details that makes us take a stand with a specific perspective.

The intention of news is to communicate past, current and future events that occur whether political or social. An article or journalist’s ability to provide just factual information with no bias is rare but still possible. Whether we consider it good journalism or not, there are a few suggestions for making journalism “good”. First and foremost, “Journalists must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety as well as any conflict of interest” (Wyss 213, 2019). Although the journalist may want to convince the audience that their viewpoint is the right one, providing the audience with accurate information is a must. Building a strong argument based on real information does a better job/looks better than providing false information. This is what leads to “fake news”. When attention is brought to information to make one’s perspective look extremely good or bad, the use of images, quotes, and videos related to the story can be misinterpreted and misused.

In Marianne Lavelle’s story “How Big Oil Blocked the Nation’s Greenest Governor on Climate Change ”, she covers a neutral perspective that shows BP, the oil company, creating a green image for themselves when their words might not be supporting what they said they wanted to do. As well as the Governor who is willing to believe them and think they have a solution. Lavelle covered an issue that would affect people around the world and her story was not based on he-said-she-said bases. Although her story covers the business aspect of the BP oil company, the focus is still on the environmental benefits the new legislation was going to make on climate change; so anti-environment (Wyss 2019) would not apply to this story (Lavelle 2019).

Lavelle tells the story from both sides, the governor who is pushing legislation that is beneficial for Climate change, and the oil companies who say they want to be apart of the change. Lavelle states, “ a chief executive who has made climate a priority, and a major player in the fossil fuel industry pledging to be a part of the solution”, referring to governor Jay Inslee and BP oil company (Lavelle 2019). She then goes on to mention how the big oil companies like BP are “portraying themselves as partners, not adversaries, in addressing global warming” (Lavelle 2019). As mentioned by a New York Times article, “Another Day of Reckoning for Big Oil’s Role in Climate Change”, the big oil companies are aware of the harm they have caused to the environment, and continue to run their businesses but now want to be part of the change (The Editorial Board 2019). This brings up the part where Marianne Lavelle addresses, there are some people that are paying attention who are suspicious of the big oil companies quick action to be part of this new legislation. Lavelle does a great job in presenting both sides as a form of thoroughness according to Bob Wyss.  

The process of SIFT was used on this article to declare its sense of accuracy and validity. The InsideClimate News is a trusted source and other trusted news platforms such as the Washington Post and the New York Times, have released articles similar to this story. Lavelle’s article also makes more of a neutral claim than taking on one exact perspective. The quotes and other information sited in the story have built-in links, which lead to the original source for many of the information stated. Which makes the story even more trustworthy because we know the information the reader is given is not “fake news”. There are many quotes that are used from lobbyist to the governor and they are sited. Fairness, transparency, thoroughness, and balance all become clear in the story due to the references and neutral stance, which makes it “good” journalism.

Sources:

Lavelle, M. How Big Oil Blocked the Nation’s Greenest Governor on Climate Change. Inside Climate News.

The Editorial Board. Another Day of Reckoning for Big Oil’s Role in Climate Change. New York Times.

Wyss, B. Covering the environment: How journalists work the green beat. New York: Routledge, 2008. Print.