Sunday, February 3, 2013

Advocacy Journalism in Disguise

Chris Kyle, a former Navy SEAL and author of the best-selling book American Sniper, and a second person were shot and killed Saturday at a gun range in Glen Rose, TX.
The New York Daily News used the story to push their own agenda, a call to ban assault weapons. Not only does the article contain a link mid-story to sign the Daily News' petition, but the end of the article contained a large printable form that can be mailed directly to the Daily News to support the ban.

Why not insert a petition banning multi-level housing units into this story?  There is no constitutional amendment protecting them.
And why no petition to ban abortions plastered all over this story?  The story itself seems to suggest there is a demographic out there that would get behind it. Why is one issue worth getting behind, but the other is not?
This is an extremely troubling situation. A news outlet should be concerned with one thing, and that is to provide its readers with accurate information. It should not be taking sides on issues. If someone on their editorial staff wants to advocate for the ban of assault weapons and direct readers to a petition not related to the Daily News that would be fine, but this petition has the Daily News' name on it.  That an editor would even consider something like this, much less have a form designed and actually inserted into news stories is beyond irresponsible journalism. This isn’t just an accidental omission or an error in judgment; it is a complete lack of understanding of what a newspaper is supposed to do. How can anyone read a story involving guns from the New York Daily News without wondering if they are getting the full story?  The paper has stated in black and white they support taking certain guns away from Americans.  They have a clearly stated agenda to ban these weapons.  Will readers trust that they can get news that may paint these guns in a positive light?  They shouldn’t expect to.  And because of that the paper has destroyed its journalistic integrity.

1 comment: