Maybe I've been looking in the wrong places, but ever since blogger Josh Wolf was released from prison (after what was a record-setting imprisonment for a U.S. journalist), much of what I'm seeing from the mainstream press are articles questioning whether Wolf deserves to be called a journalist or an activist.
Doesn't this greatly miss the point?
Especially considering the fact that these same journalists covering the story of Wolf's release could be the next in line for imprisonment by the press-hating Bush administration. That is, if (a) any of them have the desire or courage to investigate a line of inquiry that directly challenges the intentions of the current administration, and (b) were then to display journalistic integrity by not caving to judicial demands to reveal their sources or footage (as was the case of Mr. Wolf).
While some members of the mainstream media feign disapproval that someone could be both a journalist and activist, they're missing the bigger story -- that the current Washington elites have a disdain for journalists that is perhaps unrivaled in American political history. But why shouldn't Wolf be able to be both journalist and activist? Does the public display of political opinion really affect one's ability to report the truth?
We all have a political viewpoint, whether publicly acknowledged or not. The only thing that should matter in determining one's credibility as a journalist, is one's record of telling the truth. Journalists should not be disqualified for expressing a viewpoint -- they should be disqualified for lying or hiding the facts. Of course, this would rule out many of today's most popular so-called journalists: including Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter.
>> Jason Laning is an artist, activist, blogger, and armchair theorist with a strong interest in political philosophy.
friendlyagitate.net