The idea of the “objective” journalist who does nothing more than uncover and report the facts is long dead, I hope. Yes, I know some journalists like to pretend they are free from “bias” or “partisanship” but that’s not only nonsense: it’s childish. If you do not believe in something, you should find a new line of work. Even “truth” is but a version of each person’s beliefs and perspective. Facts are interpreted through personal filters.

The choice is simple: Do we admit to a point-of-view, or do we lie to our readers?

I’m attending John Kitzhaber’s education policy rollout this morning. I make no bones about my support of his campaign for governor; I honestly believe he is the best person to take over next January (I’d prefer this afternoon, but that dang constitution). I hope to assist in whatever way I can to help him win, but that won’t include distorting the issues, misreporting or misrepresenting Bill Bradbury (who is a great guy and would also make a fine governor), ignoring Bradbury or looking away if I think Kitz is wrong or off-base on something.

In other words, I believe I can be both an advocate and a journalist. The trick, of course, is developing and maintaining trust and legitimacy from readers. This will never be easy or universal. I have already heard, second-hand, disparaging remarks about me attributed to Bradbury’s campaign. I have covered two of his events and believe I was fair in my writing. If I am less enthusiastic or comprehensive in that writing than I am in covering Kitzhaber, well: duh. I think less of his proposals and overall approach than I do of Kitz; that’s why I don’t support him. I think the Bank of Oregon is overkill, that his solution of throwing more money at schools is simplistic and that his inability to comprehend what Kitzhaber means about rethinking state services is troubling. I hope I would think the same if I was not a Kitz supporter; I try to write as if Bradbury were running unopposed.

“Citizen journalist” and “advocacy journalism” are terms that have not been fully defined yet. Most of us get dismissed as “bloggers” and worse terms are used. I don’t even know what it is I am trying to accomplish myself. I refuse to be a traditional journalist, but I also refuse to simply play by my own rules. Honesty and (my own rules for) integrity require me to own up to my biases and to present, not a comprehensive picture, but at least one that takes into account the range of available perspectives.

And I think that makes me more honest and trustworthy than the “real” journalists pretending to be “objective”.