Journalists do have a agenda. The quicker we admit it, the more crisply we can shape it. (Truth, participation, evidence, democracy, science, curiosity, anti-corruption, anti-authoritarian.). That’s our side. This is a great piece by ⁦ @jayrosen_nyu⁩ https://pressthink.org/2020/05/you-cannot-keep-from-getting-swept-up-in-trumps-agenda-without-a-firm-grasp-on-your-own/

It’s hard to figure out how to advocate for those things without becoming unduly captured by interests or candidates, but that’s where the work is to be done. That’s the challenge; that’s where we need to focus.

Each of those values has a specific meaning; they aren’t mere words. We know what corruption is. We know what it means to encourage and discourage participation in democratic debates. We know how to assess evidence. Etc.

Being “pro science” doesn’t mean blindly following what every scientist says or not challenging the consensus when it’s warranted. It means - science when done well helps inform policy choices. We want it done well. Sometimes, values conflict. And so we report the conflict.

We might choose compassion as a value, too, and I concede that it’s hard to incorporate a concept of reporting into cognitive empathy. But we can go there. Curiosity is important - we want to understand what others want to know.