Which part of journalism doesn't involve "political engagement"? Selecting which stories are covered, and how prominently? Choosing whom to interview and deciding what questions to ask? Which details are important enough to include, and which to omit? There is no cogent definition of "journalism" by which it is not an intrinsically political activity.
> Secondly, df you read his blog, he pretty clearly is an activist, as he focuses on a single topic, has chosen a side
That is common among journalists; it is called a "beat".
> and also is acting upon it by protesting.
Hundreds of millions of people all over the world protest. 2–4 million did so in the U.S. alone yesterday. Are they all "activists"?
Also, most journalists just investigate and present stories by assembling what they found. And then they go and investigate another topic. But this person has just one topic.
I'd say people who consistently protest and consistently write about the topic are activists, yes. Do you need an even stronger definition?
You really don't want to get into categorizing speech as protected or not based on content.
"politically engaged" in this case refers to participating in the protests itself, or even taking a particular side. It's the opposite of being "objective", back when that was an ideal to strive for. Nowadays "objectivity" is being dropped in favor of "moral clarity".
>That is common among journalists; it is called a "beat".
No. Writing about resturants in New York is a "beat". Writing pieces consistently favoring one side is being an activist.
>Hundreds of millions of people all over the world protest. 2–4 million did so in the U.S. alone yesterday. Are they all "activists"?
Yes? Are you going to gatekeep "actvist" to people who are card carrying DSA members or something?
Secondly, df you read his blog, he pretty clearly is an activist, as he focuses on a single topic, has chosen a side, and also is acting upon it by protesting.