Advocates and Adversaries

   Reporter: "Did you ever get the feeling when you're working on a story that someone is lying to you?"
   Editor: "Of course. It happens all the time. Sometimes both sides are lying, but it's not our job to decide which. We report both sides and let the reader decide."

   Some believe if you are not an advocate for their position, you are therefore an adversary. This attitude is found among business executives as well as among bellicose politicians.
   "Those who are not with us, are against us," they say, "and they will be treated accordingly."
   Good journalists, however, are neutral -- neither advocates nor adversaries. They ask the tough questions because they need to be asked, and a democratic society, whether republic or monarchy, needs neutral reporters.
   That said, there are times when the pursuit of truth and justice demands advocates, and there is a place for advocacy journalism. If there is a wrong to be righted, corruption to be brought to light, or a danger to be exposed, it is journalism's duty to publicize these issues and embarrass those who fail to correct them.

   Lawyers and journalists are alike in some ways. They both research, gather and transmit information, and both pursue truth and justice. Lawyers, however, are always advocates for their clients. Journalists do not have clients, and are advocates only for truth and justice. They are adversaries only to those who interfere with that.