When we talk about journalism, we are talking about an immensity of things. Within journalism there are different sections, subjects, objectives, goals and, increasingly, many aspects which need to be improved. Alongside all the particulars, however, it is also necessary to consider the general purpose of journalism, which can be simply stated: to inform the public in the interests of democracy.

This happens to be my opinion; it is also based in history. However, exactly how the interests of democracy are best served by journalism, is itself a subject for further debate.

In The Elements of Journalism, edited by Bill Kovach in 2001, we read:

“The principles and purpose of journalism are not defined by technology, nor by journalists nor by the techniques which they employ.” Instead, what defines journalism is “the function news plays in the lives of people. The purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives, their communities, their societies, and their governments.”

Meanwhile, in a more recent piece entitled What´s the purpose of journalism? Media Innovation student Alina Fichter put a significantly different gloss on the performance of journalism’s role:

“We want to initiate important debates and burst the filter-bubbles. We want to spark critical discussions in society. We want to enable citizens to make smart decisions. So, if these are our goals, then that’s what we should measure.”

Fichter insisted that journalists must be “clear about what your media organisation stands for and have the courage to define your goals accordingly.”

These two accounts are both related to democracy, but they take different approaches to it. In the former, journalism plays an essentially neutral role so that citizens may become actively partisan. In the latter, journalists are expected to initiate debate by declaring who they are and what they stand for. Only then, after a public conversation in which journalists have featured as protagonists, will citizens arrive at ‘smart decisions’.

The second approach is predicated on a personal stance taken by the journalist, while the first approach depends on journalists as individual persons absenting themselves from the conduct of their professional role, in order to equip citizens to make their own presence felt in public life. In one, the personality of the journalist is paramount; in the other, the citizen is sovereign. Thus although both approaches formally acknowledge democracy as the overriding consideration, nonetheless there is a clear divide between journalism that is personal to both journalist and reader, and journalism which is strictly impartial – showing no fear or favour.

In my estimation, it can’t be both.

Historically, journalism introduced the possibility of everyone becoming aware of political decisions and debates, bringing to people’s homes (especially the homes of middle-class or lower-class families) essential information on what was going on among the elites, thereby allowing the mass of the population to gain  influence over important decisions. Almost like a portrait, journalists would paint news with words, transforming a reality which had been unreachable for most people, into something they were now part of. Thus we came to have access to the plans under discussion which would have profound implications for our own lives. If there is anything democratic in history, it is indeed the emergence of journalism, which brought people together, with strong voices and made them not just people, but also the public.

The problem is that democracy is now being used as a quick answer to justify everything. Yes, we do live in a democracy but to what extent does personal journalism manipulate that expectation by creating the idea of freedom while pushing and prodding us in the direction of the reporter’s emotions?

By raising this question, I am not saying that journalists who practise personal journalism are consciously conspiring to manipulate readers. With hindsight I can see that I myself have previously taken a personal approach to stories in order to imbue them with an emotional charge. I guess I thought that readers ought to be affected, as perhaps I was myself when I encountered the situation I was there to report. In doing this I didn’t set out to toy with my readers’ emotions and I shouldn’t think that other journalists are any more deliberately manipulative than I was. Nonetheless I now think that deploying my personality in the attempt to prompt an emotional response on the part of the reader, is problematic in itself. Moreover, this problem is becoming ubiquitous.

What I believe is happening, especially with the emergence of social networks, is that personal journalism has the effect of limiting our thinking. We end up putting emotions ahead of the facts and then find ourselves trapped in a reality of algorithms, at the mercy of the cyber-power which offers ‘limitless’ information – in fact only that information which tends to confirm our (existing) pattern of (consumer) behaviour. By definition, this excludes the impartial information (the whole picture, not the partial depiction we already agree with) that never reaches the public precisely because we are cocooned in a place that matches particular journalists and their emotions with the personal feelings and predetermined preferences of reader-consumers. In other words, we have ended up in different versions of fake democracy – various guises, same unreality.

Digital media creator Howard Owens believes that personal journalism is just as ethical as old-school public journalism, and he adds that “it still values facts, fairness, truth telling and good reporting. It’s just that personal journalism is written differently. It is written from one person, a person we can identify and identify with, for one person.” For Owens himself, personal journalists do a lot more than mere reporting: “They let us see at least a little about who they are, what they believe, what drives them and what they find important.”

However, for Philip Corbett, The Times’s associate managing editor with responsibility for editorial standards, personal journalism isn’t as positive. “I flatly reject the notion that there is no such thing as impartial, objective journalism (…) We expect professionals in all sorts of fields to put their personal opinions aside, or keep them to themselves, when they do their work — judges, police officers, scientists, teachers. Why would we expect less of journalists?”

Owens’ idea is appealing – ​​going from just journalists to human beings with beautiful souls. But I do not think that soulfulness is the best qualification for being a journalist. To follow on from what Corbett said, I expect doctors and lawyers to put into practice what they know – what they learned when training for their profession. What feelings they may have as private individuals is irrelevant to me as long as they are good professionals.

To put it more sharply, how would it be if a judge approached a case according to her personal beliefs? What if some judges feel that some homicides are justified – should they carry this attitude to court? It’s bad enough if they talk about it in personal terms when they’re out socialising. But inside the court room during a trial, absolutely not.

We have heard so many times about police officers abusing their power. Instead, we want them to stick to doing their duty, and that is why we talk about it when they stray from the straight and narrow. But suddenly, journalists are more than journalists; they have to be storytellers, almost like magic creatures who will open our souls and play on our heart strings. Yet when I want to experience magical, emotional things, I look directly for them, occasionally in personal blogs but more often in literature, art or films. Not in newspaper pages, where I want to find information about what is happening in my city, in my country, in the world I inhabit. I want facts so that I can face the world as a citizen; I do not need an emotion-laden interpretation.

I feel, more and more, that the public is being treated as if it’s unable to decide for itself. As a reader, I do not like the idea of ​​being treated like I cannot deal with impartial news. As a journalist, I want to provide readers with the impartial information they need in order to work out for themselves where they stand.

Let me give you an example. From my own experience as a reader, in my social media-led comfort zone, Brexit was not presented as the best option for anyone; it wasn’t even supposed to be an option! The journalists I read, the news that came to my social networks, the bubble I lived in, in all of these Brexit was painted in highly emotional tones with strong echoes of fascism. I’m talking about prominent journalists in quality newspapers, always repeating themselves, always based on emotion.

However, as a journalist, I decided to go into the field and interview people from both sides – both from the protest against Brexit and also the protest in favour. I produced and published stories which showed other people who weren’t there, what the protests looked like from both sides. I also came to understand that what I myself had been reading only served to fuel my ego as a political activist, instead of informing me impartially and thus allowing me to decide for myself what to think.

I realised that all the personal journalism I had been subjected to in this instance, was making me unable to understand other arguments – arguments which I now feel empathic towards, even if I still disagree with them. Having escaped from my own bubble, my political position has remained against Brexit. However, I no longer think it is a perverse proposal, as I thought previously; I no longer feel hurt and embittered, as before.

I am a person with strong opinions on many topics and I also have a strong personality. But should I take what I feel and use it as the basis for my work as a journalist? If we all do this all the time, how will we ever know the whole picture – over and above what’s emotionally satisfying for the journalist who happens to satisfy my emotions? How would we analyse situations? If we do not know the facts from impartial journalists, if we rely on journalists who are already reliant on existing preferences (theirs and ours), how can we make honest and responsible decisions?

If all media organisations and all journalists must begin by defining what they believe in, what they stand for and which discussions they want to start, then isn’t journalism reduced to a conveyor belt with all of us wrapped up in one of the many different boxes it contains?

Conversely, where are we creating the spaces in which readers can see what is happening in the world before going on to work it out for themselves, among themselves?  

With the world in flux, a news story as told today could be completely different by tomorrow, and with that change, should come the possibility for us, readers, to change our opinion of what has occurred. But this kind of open-endedness becomes less likely when journalism is centred on the emotional response of the individual journalist. Far from being open, journalism that isn’t impartial, encloses us within walls we’re not even aware of, shutting out information that differs from the half-truth we already know.

Some will say that my stance is old-fashioned. Yet I think my way of seeing journalism is more innovative than conservative. Already the Internet is full of material that is laden with emotion and, if dare I say, almost desperate for affect. The really radical thing is to create more space for information which aims to be impartial.

What I look for in journalism as a citizen is also what I want to bring to journalism as a professional: impartiality. I hope we can agree that members of the public have the capacity to analyse a news story as it is, and to draw their own conclusions. Yes, there is room for personal journalism, and there are moments when journalists must be able to voice strong opinions. But not by default. Instead we should start by showing the whole picture, without displaying our own feelings and without attempting to influence readers’ emotions.

It is important to understand that if we posit journalists as human beings who work for the public in a poetic or artistic way, we are burdening the news with too much baggage. Society needs journalism to provide facts; magic and interpretation can be found elsewhere.

What happens in the world isn’t necessarily magical, it’s only real. But on second thoughts, ‘only’ doesn’t come into it. Journalism that does justice to reality – that in itself is a big ask and a mighty task for my generation to fulfill.