The very first thing I remember learning in my journalism education was the concept of objectivity. At the core of most calls for objectivity is a very reasonable sentiment: the media shapes public opinion, so it’s important that journalists work with diligence and care to ensure that they don’t report falsehoods, misinform readers or misrepresent and exaggerate issues. That’s simple enough. But the more time I’ve spent in the field, the more I feel that when industry higher-ups call for objectivity, they’re not calling for accuracy – they’re calling for a soulless, uncontroversial status quo.
On March 28, Politico reported that, for several years, the Washington Post had enacted a policy to ban one of their reporters from covering any stories related to sexual misconduct because she had publicly spoken up about being a survivor of sexual assault, and editors perceived this to be a conflict of interest or a lack of ability to be objective in her reporting.
The reporter, Felicia Sonmez, came forward as a survivor in 2018 and was quickly thrown into a whirlwind of exhausting, vicious commentary from people and publications judging from behind a screen. Shortly after, the Post told her that “because of her past history, and her public statements about it, she would not be permitted to cover stories that pertained to sexual violence,” according to The Guardian.
When all this information surfaced, Sonmez published a Twitter thread detailing her experiences. “It was only once the Kavanaugh story broke in Sept. 2018 that the editors enacted [a ban]. It lifted several months later, then reinstated in late 2019 when I was being attacked online after the publication of a story about the man who assaulted me. The ban has been in place ever since, for more than a year now. I’ve pleaded with the editors to lift it, to no avail,” she wrote.
On March 29, the ban was reversed, but Sonmez’s years spent under the ban tell a story of countless missed opportunities for reporting that would have been priceless and are now irretrievable. She missed out on writing about Brett Kavanaugh. She missed out on writing about Alexandra Ocasio Cortez coming forward as a survivor. She missed out on writing about the allegations against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. I can only assume that there are more.
And so, I cannot help but wonder: If this same kind of objectivity-driven mindset was applied universally, would anyone would be able to write about anything at all?
Would Asian reporters be allowed to write about the surge in anti-Asian hate crimes? Would Black reporters be allowed to write about police brutality and the ongoing fight for racial equity? Would LGBTQ+ reporters be able to write about the recent wave of anti-trans legislation?
If we use the Washington Post’s logic, probably not. And who would be left to write all these stories? In most instances, none other than the same white, straight cis men who have created and monopolized the norms of journalistic coverage forever.
I want to read stories about sexual assault written by survivors. I want to read writing that is informed by lived experiences. To assume that reporters who have lived the issues they cover are incapable of writing accurate stories is offensive and detrimental to the industry. These reporters should be our most trusted sources. They know to use precise, up-to-date language. They know to treat sources with respect. They can cover sensitive topics with care and decency.
For so long as we are here, experiencing the world as humans inevitably do, stripping one’s self of all that humanity and experience is an impossible ask. May we stop asking the impossible in the name of soulless objectivity and allow our coverage to become more informed and impactful by letting informed reporters tell the important stories.
