Activist Journalism or Journalistic Activism

"What's in a name?" -- Shakespeare

I don't read that (liberal/conservative) rag. (Choose one.)
Which (liberal/conservative) rag do you read?

Reporters are neither advocates nor adversaries. We ask the tough questions because they need to be asked.

   We note the passing of Helen Thomas, veteran White House correspondent who was praised in media reports for the bluntness of her questions. 'Twas not always thus. At one time, she was widely criticized for the bluntness of her questions, especially to Presidents. Some -- often the subjects of her questions -- felt a quantity of deference should be in her tone. Courtesy, of course, but deference? Not necessarily.
   There are many who feel that journalists, if not advocates for their positions, are therefore adversaries, to be shunned, opposed, blocked, ignored or fought at every turn. If you are not with me, you are against me, they say.
   There's been a lot of talk recently about "journalistic activism," often in reference to publishing material that government would prefer to keep secret.
   But what makes a journalist an activist, to be shunned and opposed? What determines whether a journalist is one or the other, or neither, or both?
   Exposing fraud and corruption is a form of activism, as is revealing governmental practices that are contrary to the ideals expressed in the Constitution. This also applies to other nations.
   A journalist can be a neutral reporter, an activist, an adversary, an advocate, an opponent, or by turns any of the above. That's what Freedom of the Press is about. We have the right to express not only non-partisan news, but also partisan advocacy views and information that exposes misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance.
   Readers, in turn, have the right -- the obligation -- to consider the information and decide for themselves what's to be done.