I believe that 'advocacy journalism' is not an oxymoron. If that means that I'm going to disrupt the cable, partisan fracas of obsession over what this means from left and right, then so be it. I will be disruptive of it.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
All advocacy is, at its core, an exercise in empathy.
Journalism is about results. It's about affecting your community or your society in the most progressive way.
The Congressional leaders set the agenda for journalism; it's not the other way around.
The voice I've chosen to turn to is that of NPR. With a reputation for some of the finest journalism in the country, the nonprofit organization is renowned for its unbiased stance - to the point that it's been accused of being both conservative and liberal.
You're required to be outspoken in journalism, and in television you're exposed anyway, because everyone watches it.
If journalism is good, it is controversial, by its nature.
The thing that bothers me about journalism is the false equivalency we sometimes place on certain issues.
I never, ever have seen media this way. It's almost indescribable. Making up stories, refusing to run real stories. It's making themselves look like utter fools. There's no journalism, there is no media. There's pure, full-fledged advocacy here.
I do not subscribe to the advocacy journalism school. It's not who I am and not who CNN wants me to be.
I'm not an advocacy journalist - that's not what I do. My role in journalism is to be able to engage the most interesting people with the best ideas.