Some journalists are born with an agenda. Others acquire an agenda in the course of their career. And some simply have an agenda thrust upon them – by an editor, paymaster or circumstance. But there is no journalist – no reporter, however unimportant; no media contributor, however part-time; no pundit, however objective – who doesn’t have an agenda.
Being a watchdog is an agenda. For some reason, that observation needs to be repeated now and again. It is still widely believed that only bad or dishonest journalists have agendas; that having an agenda is the same thing as having a hidden purpose at odds with honestly informing people.
The assumption was in full view last week. As readers commented online on the Daphne Caruana Galizia court case (where a magistrate needs to decide whether she can be legally obliged to rat on her sources), some accused her of not being a real journalist because she ‘has an agenda’.
In fact, I wager that most readers, on reading my first paragraph, assumed that I was unmasking journalists – calling all of them (including myself) either hypocrites or else, in some way, failing to live up to what press ethics demand.
‘Having an agenda’ is generally an accusation, something to be muttered darkly. Declaring it openly and brightly, I’m aware I run the risk of being treated like a Vatican monsignor who, one fine day, yodels the joys of gay sex on the steps of St Peter’s – people are surprised but not by his proclivity, which they’ve always suspected; his readiness to sing about it, however, does take them aback.
But that is the first misunderstanding. Declaring that all journalists, whether they want it or not, have an agenda is not like announcing their trade is corrupted by Original Sin. Having an agenda is not a flaw, let alone a fatal one.
The second misunderstanding is to think that ‘having an agenda’ is a reheated version of a 1950s ideal. It’s the idea of ‘committed’ journalism, the commitment to a worthy cause. It has survived in parts of the continental European press and is resurgent in the US, with media organisations like Fox and MSNBC.
Committed journalism is essentially a variant of politicised journalism. It might be wedded to an ideal, not a political party. But what distinguishes it is the articulate, well-developed idea that such journalists have of what it is that they are doing.
Everyone might have an agenda but there is still a difference between honest purposes and dishonest ones
The most apolitical journalist still has an agenda. Because, whatever it is they’re doing, they are selecting a story over another. And selection and de-selection involve values: the journalist is assigning a value to what it is s/he are doing.
If the journalist declares a pox on all politicians’ houses, then that’s a political statement, too.
Maintaining scrupulous balance is an agenda as well. In a case where one political party is hopelessly in the wrong, not probing deeply – letting the guilty off lightly – so as not to ‘upset the balance’ may actually be a regulatory necessity, in some cases – but it does betray an agenda, whether it was set by the journalist or the regulator.
That agenda is that the major political parties must be kept in equilibrium, no matter how wildly one or all of the swings.
Agendas need not be conscious. A figure might be cropped out of a front-page photo on purpose or for technical reasons (the photo otherwise wouldn’t fit). But both decisions are informed by an agenda: the first is actively hostile; the second reveals the belief that the cropped figure is dispensable, not important enough.
Likewise, if the press corps largely ignores an event until the minister shows up, that shows an agenda that is driven by politicians.
Of course, the scarcity of human resources in media organisations plays a part. But how and where journalists are deployed is very telling: the deployment reveals the priorities, which are always choices.
There is nothing sinister in having an agenda because all that means is that you have priorities and that your attention is purposeful. The choice might not be yours but your employer’s. But the agenda is still there.
None of this need affect the quality of journalism. Everyone might have an agenda, independent or not, but there is still a difference between honest purposes and dishonest ones.
An honest agenda will not suppress facts or viewpoints that are salient to the story. Accuracy remains the most important virtue a journalist can have. But since all journalism has a purpose, boxes to tick, then it must have an agenda.
Anyone who says they have no agenda is either dishonest or deluded. What we should be discussing isn’t whether this or that journalist has an agenda. It’s whether they even know they have one, despite the protestations to the contrary. And, above all, whether it’s an honest agenda, loyal to readers or viewers.
ranierfsadni@eur3ope.com