On Jim Acosta and the Link Between Journalism and Activism


We should be more concerned about attacks on the free press than with members of the press choosing to fight back.

 
 
On the matter of Jim Acosta, CNN’s chief White House correspondent, there are some who have condemned the revocation of his press pass and put zero stock in any allegations of physical impropriety but who nevertheless think that his conduct at press conferences in general is in some sense untoward or unbecoming of a reporter. See this post for Exhibit A from a former Vox reporter, who sees Acosta’s antics as too expeditionary and crusade-y for his tastes.

You can view below the full exchange with Trump. In this clip you can see that it was not just Acosta but several of his colleagues who adopted the same approach, pressing the president to answer the question that was asked, and being shouted at and shouted down for doing so.

 

 

However odd it may seem, it’s Acosta who’s come under scrutiny, despite others in the room following his lead. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen heated exchanges between Acosta and members of this administration, either, and the longtime journalist has defended his approach in the past, saying that “this is a different kind of president…We’re going to have a different kind of playbook when it comes to covering the president. That means at times, you know, I bring a little attitude to what I do on a daily basis.”

While one can certainly harbor concern for the comportment of journalists like Acosta, perhaps we should be more concerned about the sustained attacks on the free press coming from the top, which, it must be noted given the subject in question, tend to be disproportionately directed at CNN. Perhaps we should be more concerned with an administration built on a foundation of falsehood and deceit than with those committed to challenging that foundation at every given opportunity. Perhaps we need more theatricality and hard-nosed inquiry in the press room, not less, to signal both to those in power and to the American people that what we’re witnessing isn’t normal and that resistance is still possible.

When faced with a White House that lies and spins and dissembles with seeming impunity and inches us closer to an Orwellian landscape with each passing day, the public needs unbowed stand-ins like Acosta whose duty to the truth overrides the traditional lionizing of those occupying the highest seats of power. Reporters, as our sacred link to reality, should take lengths to avoid conducting themselves as though we are in a business as usual scenario, as though this tantrum-throwing president were just like any other. Trump’s open disdain for the fact-recording community is a grave and ongoing threat to democracy and to the constitutionally protected press freedoms we take for granted. Pretending otherwise merely helps fascism along.

The argument for this view all but made itself when, in the wake of the infamous press conference, the White House tweeted out doctored video by way of InfoWars in an effort to justify barring Acosta from the press room. Their version was sped up to create the appearance that Acosta had karate-chopped the aide’s arm when she reached for his mic. In case it wasn’t obvious, this is Dictatorship 101. Why continue with the bother of inconvenient questions when you can simply oust the question-asker on cooked-up pretenses? Shouting down reporters and giving Acosta the boot were unprecedented enough, but circulating literal fake news — itself a fascist act — to justify fascist behavior is a monumental act of mendacity and gaslighting that should erase away any thought of impugning Acosta’s manner.

The extent to which journalism and activism should intertwine is sophisticated, to be sure. Some caution that leaning too much into the latter can compromise one’s ability to secure trust with the subjects on whom one is supposed to be reporting and that tacking too close to an agenda can undermine the profession as a whole. Others, such as Deepak Adhikari of Al Jazeera, go further and say that activism by its very nature is incompatible with the professionalism that serious journalism requires. In order to avoid undue influence over political and social matters, he contends, an effective journalist must sacrifice narrative in the interest of fostering an informed debate.

On the other side are those who see this framing as a false dichotomy, arguing that journalism is a form, or subset, of activism. Matt Pearce of the LA Times has written that “journalism is activism in its most basic form. The entire basis for its ethical practice is the idea that a democracy requires an informed citizenry in order to function. Choosing what you want people to know is a form of activism, even if it’s not the march-and-protest kind.” If reporters had no intention of influencing the issues they’re reporting on, he goes on to ask, why write about them in the first place?

In many cases one’s identity and life experience lend a sense of urgency to a story, making it difficult to set aside one’s personal perspective. A woman reporting on a policy proposal that seeks to cut abortion access, or an indigenous American covering oil and gas conglomerates whose projects encroach on native lands, for instance, will inevitably find it more cumbersome to navigate the boundary between journalism and advocacy, however diligently they conceal their bias. The same applies to anyone personally affected by a story, particularly those casting a light on human injustice. 

Maria Bustillos of Popula.com argues that even choosing not to take sides in a story is in fact picking a side because that choice serves the status quo: “All speech has a political dimension, if only one that cosigns the status quo through its failure to question or challenge. All forms of not playing are playing.”

Still, we are left with the question of what to do when lies are peddled by the powerful. Even if you see journalism and activism as discrete entities, what shared role might they have in holding errant politicians and institutions accountable? What indeed is the journalist’s role when confronted with blatant falsehood, day after day? Or, as CNN poses the question, are journalists to be passive players in the public conversation or active participants who shape that conversation?

In my view, speaking truth to power becomes an ever more essential aspect of the profession up against an administration that abuses it so casually and carelessly as do Trump and his sycophants. There is nothing normal, not in the United States at least, about using doctored content to deflect criticism. There is nothing okay with repeatedly referring to the press as the “enemy of the people.” There is nothing acceptable about an administration that systematically suppresses science and actively harms the well being of future generations. There is nothing common, decent or respectable about repeatedly attacking the special counsel investigation and appointing individuals who would reasonably be expected to undermine it.

For the press to fulfill its duty, truth must come first, and that is why mannerly yet resolute pushback and on-the-spot fact-checking ought to be part of the reportorial toolkit. While countering misinformation in real-time often has the scent of activism in practice, it is nevertheless essential for maintaining the integrity of the profession — even more so when what’s at stake is the continuity of the profession itself. As David Roberts of Vox so succinctly put it, “Journalism cannot be neutral toward a threat to the conditions that make it possible.”

Trump’s actions and Trump’s conduct in this latest episode are what should alarm us, not Acosta’s. Though some see Acosta’s conduct as a step beyond mere advocacy journalism, I can’t agree. Far from viewing his posture as improper, I see it as being sensitive to or in tune with the weight of the historical moment. Similar to how having climate deniers on your press panel creates a false sense of balance around a scientifically settled question, continuing to engage in good faith can send the wrong message by lending legitimacy to that which is neither legitimate nor factual.

Not only do I believe his adopting such a posture is warranted in this moment, I think less of reporters who fail to adopt a warrantably critical posture toward the complacently stupid and childishly hostile Trump and who decline to protect the shared norms on which political reportage relies. The press cannot afford to stay silent when their institution is put at existential risk by a political movement that rejects or is at best indifferent towards foundational values like transparency, objectivity, accuracy, professionalism, fairness and truth. As the late Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci once wrote, “There are moments in life when keeping silent becomes a fault, and speaking an obligation — a civic duty, a moral challenge, a categorical imperative from which we cannot escape.”

And what is the alternative here, really? Simply asking routine questions while playacting that everything is ordinary is equally unlikely to return meaningful or satisfactory results. Sarah Sanders won’t answer your question in a transparently honest fashion either way, and Trumpland would still write off CNN as fake news no matter how cordial its reporters. Better is it to take off the kid gloves and indicate to those in power that we see through the lies and repeated attacks, and have no patience for them. That we refuse to go through the motions as though this conduct is normal or acceptable, or attempt to lend some form of legitimacy to actions unworthy of a mature, self-respecting democracy.

If this is the “crusade” Acosta has decided to embark on, consider me on Team Acosta. Would that others would follow his lead. Indeed, if this galvanizes others of his caliber to take on a more adversarial stance in public, then his activist approach will have paid off. Once we have someone in the White House again who respects basic norms and core institutions and not a self-confessed sexual predator who fills the airwaves with lies and attacks on the free press, maybe then we can work on things like civility and decorum.

 

Further reading: 

Feature image credit: AP Photo/Susan Walsh

Tags: