Epstein Arrest Leaves Top Technology Figures Racing to Distance Themselves

That is called journalism, not activism. Activist journalist are a stain on the industry.

Some prefer an (occasionally abrasive) activist journalist to a 'pure' journalist observing the world from sealed towers. The former may be more in touch with or passionate about their subject material. Different strokes for different folks

I can think of a few accomplished, well-respected, and high-quality journalists that would be considered (and likely self-identify as) activists. I respect people using their talents to further a cause they deeply care about.

Journalists are supposed to have ethics. They are supposed to report the facts. About as activist as you could get without ditching ethics would be to only do real journalism on what you think matters. I bet it would be fairly easy to create a tool nowadays that reads articles and highlights objective journalism vs subjective activism. Most 'journalism' nowadays is thinly veiled propaganda.

The problem is there is a difference in bias. Ostensibly a journalist is interested in following what leads to facts while suppressing any personal bias. Activists seek facts which support their biases (as well intended as they may be).

Once you actually noodle on what journalism is, "objectivity" to this sort of mindset boils down to "print box scores and shut the presses down after." An intern recording singles versus walks is fine but it's neither reporting nor journalism any moreso than a phone book is.

There is no, has never been any, and never will be "objective journalism" because it is a contradiction in terms. Journalists are tasked with telling the truth as they understand it. This involves research and the understanding of facts, sure. It also, inescapably and to the real dismay of a certain segment of the universe that, candidly, often seems generally indisposed to having a society, means having an opinion and informing that reporting through it. That opinion is as much "this is worthy of being discussed" as it is "this is wrong and an affront to decency" and both of these are necessary, inescapable, and inextricable components of journalism. It's definitional. It's what the thing is. "Objective journalism" is a contradiction in terms.

Where journalism can fail, and there is certainly a historical record of it, is believing oneself entitled to one's own facts. But that is separate from one's interpretation of those facts--and, generally though not universally, the invention of one's own facts does not end well for a journalist who attempts it (see Stephen Glass for an example).

One interests activist is anothers journalist, is anothers anarchist, is anothers communist, is another rebel, etc.

Journalists face the firing squads on all sides when someone or something in power is being called out.

The concept of activism itself is neutral. And useful, and important. In principle.

The difference between an activist deciding arbitrarily on a position through bias vs. coming to a position legitimately and promoting it is largely in your perception and based on your agreement or disagreement with their position.

There is a very very good reason this term was coined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presstitute

Nearly all major corporate news is corporate propaganda.

This is a great description. There's also the corollary which is "PR is printing what other people want, journalism is printing what some people don't want". Those people will of course see you as biased.

Thank you. And I'd never heard your pithy description before, but I shall proceed to steal it. ;) As the thinking seemingly goes, only journalists must have ethics (those ethics being defined as "whatever makes the claimant happy at the given time"), but I'm not a journalist...!

HN makes it difficult to really have these conversations in-depth because at some point one must nod to the elephant in the room and point out that there is a manufactured epistemic closure at the heart of the "objective journalism!" complaints. Which is to say that 'edoo might be relaying his opinion in good faith but the folks who peddled his opinion to him certainly did not do so in similar good faith--and there is something slithering in the dark that has a real interest in the delegitimization of journalism that even just tries to represent the truth as it is understood by the journalist.

You're forgetting that pursuit of facts and truth is not necessarily orthogonal to "activism". Can I be a climate activist journalist while still uncovering facts about people trying to suppress knowledge of global warming and poison the well? I don't see why not.

Report the score and go home is the absolute only job of a true journalist. If it is a controversial issue they would be entirely corrupt not to lay out the details of all sides. That is why news used to have dedicated opinion columns, before all the news went most entirely opinion. I have no idea who Celente is, other than being listed on that wiki page as the source of that term. Your ad hominem attack tells me I'm on the right track though.

One hopes a journalist isn’t selective about the facts they present. For example only include facts which might contribute to incriminate someone but omit facts which could exonerate someone.