Journalism’s credibility crisis is real – here’s a way forward
Check out my essential standards for newsrooms in a time of skepticism.
Hey y’all, Anita here. May has been an incredibly intense month for me, so I’m looking forward to winding and slowing down this summer. 😮💨
In the past month and a half, I cancelled three worktrips and pulled out of four conferences because of my recent loss. I was looking forward to one conference in particular, Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) emeritus journalism professor Ivor Shapiro’s upcoming “Reporting news in a disbelieving age: Standards of practice amid the crisis in journalism’s credibility” colloquium, which will gather journalists and academics to discuss the integrity of information about current affairs, as well as issues affecting journalistic practices around source selection, verification, public engagement, impartiality/objectivity, fairness and more.
Because I won’t be attending, a former master’s student of mine who’s working with Shapiro and TMU journalism professor Janice Neil on a global research study to determine “essential standards for news reporting,” interviewed me for my perspectives. Here’s the Q&A, below.
When you're covering contentious views, or people who have opposing views, what is your view on how that is covered — whether it should have equal weight or if it should be differently weighted?
I think it really depends on the subject matter. Journalism is a pillar of democracy, so that is a framework that should not be challenged. It should be inherently implied in all journalism that we believe in democratic rights, that we believe in human rights — basically the underpinnings of our country, Canada. So, that should be reinforced. It's not like we're going to debate whether fascism is a good approach to governance versus democracy.
The other thing I would say is: This was well before the anti-vax movement — I wrote a cover story for The Toronto Star in 2012. It was a story about a pediatrician discharging patients who opted not to vaccinate their children. I was told to get a perspective from somebody who is anti-vax, but it was clear that the framing and what I discussed with the editorial team and my editors was: We're on the side of science, and 99% of scientists agree that vaccinating your children is a good thing — it doesn't lead to autism.
But it's still very salient and important to cover the fact that some people have this perspective, but contextualize it heavily with the science that's proven and peer-reviewed. So that's my take. Essentially, when it comes to contentious issues, you're on the side of extensive research, science, long-standing facts. Of course, I know with science, information's constantly being [updated and challenged by scientists themselves]; but if we're talking about what is the status-quo accepted view by people who are experts and knowledgeable, that's essentially the framing that you adhere to. But you also acknowledge that some people may have different views for various reasons.
That's a great point. It does bring up a different question that I have in terms of weighting that information. So, when it comes to science, do we weigh science and scientific information differently than we would, say, something like lived experience?
That's a good question. I'm a big fan of peer-reviewed and rigorous research. I understand the importance of acknowledging lived experience, but I think anyone can be like, “This is my lived experience, and it cannot be challenged” when it's a single individual perspective. So, if that becomes a critical mass of perspectives that leads to quantifiable data, then to me, yes, lived experience is valid. But it can't just be, “This is my experience, and you have to take it exactly as is — as objective reality.” That's just not reasonable and not what we should be accepting as journalists, right?
I think there's a difference between [that and] compassionate, trauma-informed reporting, like consulting communities and taking the time to listen to those perspectives. But I don't think we should just stick something in just because somebody's like, “This is my lived experience, it is definitive and it represents a universal perspective.”
I'm wondering how to balance somebody's lived experience while being compassionate and trauma-informed. In your view, how would you be able to balance those two kinds of opposing things?
I'm an over-communicator in a good way, I’d hope, and that's something that I prioritize. I'm just really transparent. So I'll validate and say, “I'm sorry that happened to you,” or “I understand; I can see how that is XYZ” and “I'm making note of that for sure, and I want to be able to represent your experience accurately and fairly.”
If there's an issue of somebody coming up and saying, “This needs to be represented as objective reality,” I'll be like, “Well, I've spoken to X number of people; there's this kind of data, so I'm going to make sure that I represent what I've gathered accurately,” and emphasize also that this isn't an opinion piece. If you're creating a journalistic output, it's incumbent on you to represent, fairly, different perspectives — and other people may have different perspectives than this person’s lived experience.
Some people may believe it's okay to murder. And they're like, “I murdered somebody, and it's my lived experience, and it was fair for these reasons.” But that's just not what we uphold in this country, you know? So I think it's what a fair and reasonable person would in this country believe, and also should reinforce our democratic values. So, that's kind of what I always come back to as a frame.
That's a great point. Speaking of contentious views and going back a bit, what is your opinion on disseminating harmful views — or it doesn't even have to be a harmful view, like another piece of misinformation?
Yeah, I know what you mean. People often talk about platforming mis- and disinformation, or people with toxic views. I’m going to sound really repetitive, but I do think it's about context, right? I don't think it's healthy or helpful to ignore growing swaths of extreme perspectives — because they are growing. It’s not like most people are not reasonable; in fact, I think most people, especially in this country, are very reasonable. It's just that extreme views are getting platformed and getting more attention than they historically have, or being validated more. So, it's important to point to the fact that this is a phenomenon that exists and provide that context, but also reinforce that this is just not what the majority of reasonable people or experts or our society values, within the piece itself. It's not like you have to belabour it necessarily, but I do think it's important to reinforce that.
I think some of the neutrality or the objectivity stuff gets confused when people start to equate an extreme view like fascism with something like democracy. That's when it starts getting confusing. So I always go back to: What are the values of your country? And that's different depending on where you go. I'm talking as a Canadian who's born and raised here, and it’s a huge reason why I entered journalism.
That's great. You did mention neutrality and objectivity, and I do want to get to that point. Do you think that reporters or journalists can do their work with a level of objectivity?
Yep. I think the method can be objective. We have processes for a reason, right? You do in-depth research, you consult sources that are reliable — that don't have a bone to pick, don't have a vendetta. There's a reason why they're representing this particular view.
Your piece goes through several rounds of edits, including a fact-checking process. And I think this is where the definitions get murky — but making sure you have a diverse roster of perspectives; you're not going to the usual suspects. I don't just mean that in terms of race, gender. I mean that in terms of class, in terms of worldview even, political views, as well (within reason, like I mentioned, within the framework of our country). Then as a result, the method can be objective. I don't think anyone is objective [or has a] godlike omniscience.
I have a perspective. I vote in elections. I know some journalists don't do that, but that still doesn't even mean they don't necessarily have a particular perspective or political perspective — I just don't think that's humanly possible.
Also, something that is helpful and emerging these days, but not necessarily something I’d prescribe if you're not comfortable with it is being transparent about your views. I'm comfortable with my own team doing this at The Green Line. As long as you're really openly communicating with your audience, and they know you're human and you're honest with them, I think that's acceptable, coupled with objective methods of news gathering.
On that basis of being objective or being able to check your biases at the door, do you think that that is something a journalist is able to do even if they are transparent about where they're coming from?
I should think so — I think I've been able to do that, for sure — if you're talking about a journalist that upholds the principles of journalism. I'm somebody who's very principled when it comes to the goal of the role and the job. If you know exactly what you're doing, you're not here as an activist.
I think it's very easy to compartmentalize. It's just about being principled and honest. I have team members who are very passionate about particular issues, but they understand at the end of the day that The Green Line is a non-partisan news outlet and we have a particular mission — an ethos at The Green Line that they committed to. So, it's not like I blindsided them. We're not an advocacy or activist news organization, and they're able to separate [The Green Line’s work from their own views].
It also involves clear communication with your team, so I've had more challenging conversations; the thing I'm thinking about in particular is what's happening in Gaza. I had to have difficult conversations with people who've actually been directly impacted; my managing editor’s from Lebanon, so she has family who are afraid for their lives, right? It makes sense when somebody has skin in the game [that they feel a certain way], and that's when you validate their lived experience, but also say, “I totally get that as a human being — I feel for that” and also, “This is our goal as a journalist in our framework” And [my managing editor] absolutely understands that. So, I do think people can make that distinction.
I think that's a really interesting point. I'm wondering if that works the same way in terms of relationship to sources. I’m not talking about deep relationships, but any kind of relationship. Do you think that it's better to be transparent about those, or that you can kind of leave your feelings at the door and still report on something?
You mean if there's a personal relationship between the reporter and the source, or…?
And sources, especially when you've been on a beat for a long time, you actually have a rapport with some people on that beat. Do you think it's better to be transparent, or to still kind of put that relationship at the door when you're doing your job, or maybe remove yourself from the reporting of that specific situation?
Again, it comes to the principles of the individual journalist, and I think many, many journalists are very principled. I think if I felt like I was getting too close to somebody, or I felt I wanted a particular outcome for them, then I would remove myself, absolutely. I also think it's impossible to not have some sort of collegial relationship after you've been talking to a source for a long time, especially over, say, years. Many political reporters on the Hill actually have that kind of dynamic with their sources.
One of the things I've seen from some of the best reporters is that they're really transparent with them. They're able to say, “This is my job,” and then the source is able to be like, “I respect you for it.” I don't know if a lot of journalists feel this way, but I'm sure many do — I actually try to, as much as possible, vet sources for being principled. Because you want to be able to trust what somebody's saying, that they're ethical, that they're honest. Or else why include their perspective in the piece, right?
I don't think people often talk about that, but a lot of what we do is actually, in some ways, assessment of character. It's often why we don't take anonymous rants about people or grievances about people because then this person isn't held accountable. For me, it's an understanding of the role that we have as journalists that the sources need to respect. And if that line is clear and communicated and respected, I don't see how you can't have a somewhat warmer relationship with the source and still be able to do your job.
Very interesting. On the topic of sources, I'm wondering what your view is on paying sources.
I'm somebody who's actually okay with it, depending on the context. So the way I measure it is through power dynamics. If it's Mark Carney, you're not going to pay the guy to do an interview with you because he's the Prime Minister of Canada, right? He's also a public servant, so he should be open to speaking to the press. If we're talking about somebody who's very vulnerable, say, a victim of sexual assault — they may live in a rural area, and they have to commute two hours to get to an area that's accessible to speak to you. Then I don't really think it's a problem paying for their bus fare and their dinner.
I'm definitely very much somebody who feels journalism is a public service. But I mean, you can't just tell that to somebody if they're going to be retraumatized through the experience, and they're also going to lose money in the process. They’re not in a position to be able to [make] sacrifices for something they would feel [to be] as esoteric as public service [journalism] if they're struggling themselves. The power dynamic would shift; I would be in the position of power as a journalist vis-à-vis that person who's more vulnerable. There should be guidelines within individual newsrooms, and it should be discussed thoroughly with the editor and the reporter.
Very interesting point, for sure. I'm wondering if there's anything that we haven't covered when it comes to the standards of journalism that you want to bring up.
The reason why this [interview] came up initially, and why Ivor and Adrian approached me to speak [at the “Reporting news in a disbelieving age Standards of practice amid the crisis in journalism’s credibility” colloquium on June 5] was because of engagement journalism, and how that was something [that’s finally being accepted in the Canadian journalism industry]. I'm somebody who's practiced for a long time; I've been a proponent of it for a while. It started emerging in the early 2010s, and it's evolved over the last 15 years, basically. It's actually starting to enter — I don't know if mainstream is the right term — but it's being accepted as an industry practice, an industry standard.
That’s just something I want to highlight because I find it really interesting. I think the notion of consulting communities for their information needs and basically honouring the needs of community in a bottom-up way rather than a top-down way is something that was a little controversial for a while. Now, I think it's actually embedded as part of a lot of [journalistic] practice in a lot of newsrooms, including in places like the CBC, [which] is seen as the benchmark for a lot of journalism in this country. It means that it's broadly accepted.
It's interesting to see how things evolve and are maybe controversial initially, but are able to be integrated in a way that still reinforces our journalistic best practices and principles.
This transcription was edited and condensed for clarity.
The Green Line opportunities: text/video pitches
The Green Line is hiring for a full-time contract role, and we’re specifically looking for an Engagement Reporter and Producer who’d start with us as early as mid-June. If you’re interested, check out the job description and apply by Friday, June 6. Feel free to send any questions to hello@thegreenline.to. I’d also really appreciate it if folks shared this posting widely with your Toronto networks.
Quick and Clean
In March, The Green Line Documenter Sebastian Tansil and I gave a talk to the Civic Tech Toronto crew titled “From News to Action: How The Green Line's Documenters Are Changing Civic Engagement.” You can watch it here on YouTube.
Splice community manager Mili Semlani, who I had the pleasure of meeting back in November when I spoke at Splice Beta in Thailand) wrote a post on Linkedin that articulates what I’ve long felt in my bones: “Media revenue model hiding in plain sight: How connection could pay media's bills.”
Many thanks to Editor & Publisher for profiling The Green Line in its March 2025 issue!
How you can support The Other Wave
My professional mission has always been to support the global movement towards more thoughtful, impactful news coverage, and all the ways that manifests. If The Other Wave gets you to think even a little differently about journalism, especially in Canada, then I will have accomplished what I set out to do. And if TOW gets you to take action and support Canadian media outlets — especially ones that strive to be innovative and inclusive — I will have exceeded my expectations.
If my values and goals resonate with you, please consider supporting fiercely independent media analysis that fills in gaps in coverage of the Canadian journalism landscape. How? Feel free to provide feedback, pass along resources, donate money or simply share this newsletter with your friends.