Abstract
In this thesis I focus on advocacy journalism. Key question is whether advocacy necessarily results in a form of propaganda or whether a middle way is possible. “Can advocacy journalism also be objective, and if so, in what way, to what extent, and with what import?” is the key research
... read more
question. To answer this question, it is important to not only investigate journalistic truth but also the normative thoughts. As the trustee model is the dominant model for journalism in the Western world, I start in part 1 by analysing the normative and epistemological principles of this model. For the analysis of the normative principles, I use the theory of the public sphere of the German philosopher Habermas who calls the press the most eminent representative of the public sphere. To carry out her tasks properly, the press must not only be independent of power but must also, of course, refrain from exerting any power itself as a part of a power-free public sphere. This ideal of independence and neutrality has explicit consequences for the way in which journalists deal with reality within the trustee model: the epistemological basis of the model. I have formulated a set of rules that gives shape to this ideal. The rules are substantially based on starting points derived from logical positivism, a philosophical theory that relies on the scientific research method and is strongly focussed on the exclusion of values. In the second part I formulate a criticism on this model. Perhaps we should question Habermas’ idea that a kind of power-free space can arise in our society. Furthermore my analysis shows that politico-economic power influences all the rules of objective journalistic principles. Logical positivism, the philosophical theory on which objective journalistic thought is based, has also come in for strong criticism and has proved untenable. For the research into the normative basis of an alternative model, I refer to the work of the British-Belgian philosopher Mouffe. According to Mouffe, the successful functioning of a democracy lies not in banishing power from the public sphere, but in the possibility of challenging existing power relationships. Advocacy journalism, however, is not propaganda or public relations. Advocacy journalists want first and foremost to establish the truth in a reliable manner, treat facts carefully, and thereby give direction to public debate. On the basis of interviews with advocacy journalists and the literature, I investigate a set of rules that journalists can use to not only be engaged but also objective. These rules of advocacy journalism are not reconcilable with logical positivism, which, after all, rejects any kind of interpretation or commitment to value. A philosophy of science that is reconcilable with the rules is critical realism. I than come to the conclusion that advocacy journalism can make a valuable contribution to the knowledge obtainable from objective journalism - particularly because involvement with the interests and perspective of a political, cultural or social movement does not have to be to the detriment of objectivity.
show less