A journalist's job is to journal something, nothing more and nothing less.

If a purported journalist wants to influence or otherwise lead his audience somewhere, he is many things (commentator, advocate, activist, influencer, etc.) but he is not a journalist.

Journalism and a robust news media are a critical part of democracy. We can’t have a functioning democracy without them, just like we also need an independent judiciary, independent educational institutions and so on. As such, journalists are on the “side” of democracy. It is no accident that fascists and authoritarians attack the news media. They have to in order to gain and keep power.

The correct posture, therefore, of the free press when a charismatic authoritarian is on the cusp of power is opposition. So-called “neutrality” is not just foolish, it betrays their entire reason for being!

> If a purported journalist wants to influence ... he is not a journalist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy_journalism

That seems to just describe activism, not journalism. What makes it journalism to you - the association with a company that punishes a newspaper?

That’s a pretty low bar for “activism” in my mind. Activism is more about organizing people, organizing events, coordinating action, raising money, protesting, etc. although good journalism enables activism.

The entire point of journalism is holding powerful people/groups accountable. This is why countries like China hate journalists. Big companies like “journalists” who don’t ask tough questions. But the job of journalism isn’t just to reprint a press release with slightly different phrasing.

Declaring your misunderstanding doesn't make it so.

"Engineers make implements of war" or so.

It’s very strange how many people here have confidently incorrect ideas about what journalism purports to be or do.

An engineer is someone who develops and implements engines.

What is an engine? Citing Merriam Webster[1]:

>3a: something used to effect a purpose

So yes, an engineer can make implements of war among many other implements. The people who actually wage war are called other things.

[1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/engine

Your comment suggests you do not know the English meanings of "make" and "implements". Note that implements is a noun in my above comment.

Also, you've inverted the etymology. Engines are named after the ingenuity of their makers.

Devil's advocate: you can be more than one thing at once. And newspapers never promised to only be for journalism.

This is a completely wrong and perhaps deliberately misleading impression of journalism and journalists. Healthy journalism absolutely provides critical analysis.

lol....a key tenet of journalism is objective reporting:

Objective Reporting: Journalism aims to report events truthfully, objectively, and fairly, without bias. This involves verifying facts, seeking multiple perspectives, and presenting information clearly.

Activist-journalism is an oxymoron. There are very few journalists anymore.

> Journalism aims to report events truthfully, objectively, and fairly, without bias.

Sure, that’s a fine definition. Let’s agree that the heart of journalism is truth-seeking. Can you also admit that Trump and his ilk are characterized by rampant dishonesty, deliberate misinformation and the peddling of conspiracy theories? Because that’s all true. So if journalism is about truth-seeking, how could it not be in opposition to Trump? Anyone who speaks the truth is a threat to the man!

Is it activism to report on a rape survivors group and not an ice cream social?

Are there a clear bright line tests for things like "objective" and "bias" and "fair"?

You can find countless lists describing principles and tenets of journalism that differ from each other.

Accuracy, verification, impartiality, yes, but seeking the truth upsets people, and the usual attack on that is to claim bias, prejudice, activism and “fake news” on the part of the journalist/organization

These are not journalists, these are the OPINION EDITORS. You know, the op-ed page, the page that contains NO journalism.

It has been a long tradition for the OPINION EDITORS of newspapers to endorse one or more positions of various political races, especially the presidential race.

This is regarding endorsements by the outlet as a whole. If someone wants to go out and publicly endorse a candidate on their own name, nobody's stopping them.

What Bezos did is say, no, you cannot and will never again slap the Washington Post's name onto your personal endorsement. I think that's fair, he owns the brand, and I think it's also good for journalism overall because it's not a journalist's job to push opinions.

> This is regarding endorsements by the outlet as a whole

Endorsements are written and attributed to the Editorial Board, not the entire outlet.

Examples:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/18/opinion/kamala-harris...

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/30/opinion/editorials/kamala...

https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/editorials/a/endorsement-pr...

It’s a distinction without a difference to anyone who isn’t being pedantic.

When Woodward and Bernstein issued a statement about Bezos's interference, it began, "We respect the traditional independence of the editorial page." Do you know more about journalism at The Washington Post than Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein? Or are they just pedants?

Given general hypocrisy, I expect an R endorsement come 2028. When the "swamp" is cleared and Bezo's Ai can write his opinions ghosting as a "journalist" with a respected brand.

If Bezos goes back on his word and lets or orders the Washington Post endorse a candidate in future elections? Yeah, weapons free to torch his ass.

I'll take my apology now.

The main thing for journalists is to strictly separate news reporting from editorial opinion pieces and clearly mark which is which.

"The main thing for journalists is to strictly separate" a journalists personal opinion and political leanings from the news they are reporting. That is possible but it takes a strong editor to say no, you're trying to push your own personal opinion of the facts based on your political beliefs, when it should be up to the reader to decide that.