When Lou Dobbs resigned as a CNN anchor after a dispute with his boss over his partisan views delivered on his newscasts, it was indication of the extent to which advocacy journalism – in which the reporter’s views are deliberately presented as facts – has gained ascendancy in the United States. Advocacy journalism, which takes a specific stance, often for political purposes, is a source of tension between its adherents and those who believe journalists should be neutral and report facts. Traditional journalists are taught that their job is to inform; provide the facts and allow the reader (or listener) to reach his or her own conclusions. Objective journalism and advocacy journalism are often labeled as “news of verification” and “news of assertion.”

Dobbs had been told by CNN’s president, Jonathan Klein, to choose between subduing his rhetoric and providing a balanced, objective newscast and remaining on the air. Klein expressed concern that programs in which news and opinions were seamlessly blended, without acknowledgement, could undermine the network’s credibility. Dobbs said Klein “told me point blank the network was going to move away from the advocacy journalism that I practice.” Dobbs had undergone a transformation since he joined CNN at its beginning as its staid business news anchor. Over time, after leaving the network and returning, he became up front with his conservatism, pushing his ideas openly on the air. He also was a leader of the “birther’ movement – those who claim Barack Obama was not born in the United States and therefore was ineligible to become president. Long after Obama’s birth certificate was made public Dobbs continued that assertion so intensely that CNN had to apologize on the air. Dobbs even suggested Obama was responsible for his downfall, noting that his ratings dropped after the election.

Objectivity, fairness and accuracy, with notable exceptions, have been the hallmarks of American journalism for more than a century. Those who hold to that standard believe the media have a mission and journalists have a major role in helping provide citizens with the information they need to make informed decisions about issues affecting their lives. If good information is lacking citizens are unable to choose, for example, from the options that are available, whether voting for a certain candidate or deciding on a referendum to build a community center. The Founding Fathers recognized the role of a free press, and confirmed that belief with The First Amendment. Apart from the public sphere, news affects our lives in other ways. The daily interaction between family and friends often turns on things that have been featured in the media.

Those who hold to the historic journalistic model are made uneasy when advocacy, distortion and half-truths are promoted under the guise of reportage. The digital revolution has changed the way news is delivered and retrieved. And despite the electronic media, respected sources estimate about 90 percent of the original reporting is still generated by newspapers. Some TV and radio stations and bloggers take that original reporting and use it as a starting point to follow up on or for commentary.

The journalist should not be beholden to any group. I’ve known journalists whose views were so strong in that direction they would not join any clubs, organizations or political parties to avoid the appearance of possible conflict in any stories they might handle regarding such entities.

Advocacy journalism supporters sometimes contend that since everyone has an opinion no one should try to be objective. However, because objectivity may be difficult to achieve that does not mean we should resist making an effort. Deni Elliott, director of the Dartmouth College Ethics Institute, said, “No matter how important the issue, it’s disconcerting for sources and consumers to see a reporter change hats from impartial analyst to advocate. It would be like seeing a judge do commercials to promote the death penalty. Such action can’t help but affect credibility.”

If journalists can’t be counted on to report the truth, then the need for their existence is questionable. Opinions are plentiful – at the barbershop, the beauty salon, and in the workplace. Journalists have been granted special privilege under the Constitution, and it would be irresponsible to mishandle that status by promoting a personal agenda at the expense of the truth.

(George E. Hardin worked as a photographer, reporter and editor, and in public relations during a long career before he retired. His column appears every other week.)