Coming From Project

A Journalistic Exploration by NYU Studio 20

Examples Posts

by on

Starting your own ‘Coming From’ statement

Thinking of crafting your own “where I’m coming from” statement? You’ll need some way to get started. Here is a list of starter questions provided by Studio 20 director Jay Rosen.

An important qualification. In no way does “where I’m coming from” (as a journalist) require you to expose parts of yourself that you would rather keep private. Nor does it mean that you must reveal your political ideology, and whether you voted for Trump or Bolsonaro or Alberto Fernández. You can talk about these things, but you do not have to.

Questions to ask yourself. None of these is required in a Coming From statement. But any of them could help, and get you thinking in the right direction. Pick the ones that work for you. Drop the ones that don’t.

  • As a careful reader, listener, viewer — or user — of your work in journalism, what should I know about you?
  • What should I keep in mind about you as I experience and interact with your work?
  • What are the beliefs about the world that lie behind your work in journalism?
  • From what traditions do you come? (For example, I come from the tradition of Jewish intellectuals in New York.)
  • What is the culture you come from and what (if anything…) does it have to say about good journalism?
  • What traditions in journalism do you feel part of, or come from? (For example, in my new post I said that ProPublica.org was clearly coming from “the long history of progressive reform in the U.S., especially the chapter called Muckraking, of which investigative journalists Ida Tarbell and Lincoln Steffens, and the publisher S.S. McClure were early exemplars.”)
  • What are your foundational beliefs as a journalist or as an aspiring innovator in journalism? (One of mine is: the more people who participate in journalism, the stronger the press will be.)
  • What motivates you to seek change in journalism or contribute to the survival of the public service press?
  • Who have been your biggest influences in journalism— your heroes?
  • What are the pleasures, joys, delights or satisfactions you get from doing or studying journalism?
  • What kind of impact do you think good journalism should have, or do you want yours to have?
  • What are the fascinations that drove you into journalism— if any did?
  • Same question, different keyword: What are the fears that drove you into journalism?
  • What have been your most formative experiences in journalism? (The events that shaped you…)
  • Complete this sentence: As a journalist or proponent of innovation, I am the child of…
  • Is there a story you can tell us that will demonstrate where you are coming from? 

We hope your experience with ComingFrom.org will inspire you to rethink the practice of transparency in journalism. Have you crafted your own Coming From statement? We’d love to hear from you.

by on

‘Objectivity at-all-costs has a cost’: Why Jeff Poirier thinks journalism is failing the Constitution

Jeff Poirier is an American media professional studying journalism at New York University. His background includes local newspaper, broadcast and digital production. Most recently, he was a digital platform manager at ESPN, where he also wrote and edited breaking news alerts.

My name is Jeff Poirier … and I come from nowhere in particular. I’m American, which is a self-contained identity for some, but not for me. If you ask where I’m from, I might say, “it’s complicated.”

Where was I born? Rhode Island

Where did I grow up? Arizona

Where did I become me? California

Where am I now? New York

My life has been nomadic. I’ve lived in six different U.S. states with seventeen different home addresses. That transience meant I was constantly uprooting and re-rooting in new places with new people. It also means “where I’m from” was never a significant part of my identity.

Jeff Poirier with his son Julien in Central Park.
Jeff Poirier with his son Julien in Central Park.

Instead, I’ve looked elsewhere for a sense of place.

After finishing college at UCLA, I was convinced I needed an interesting job at an impressive company. Who exactly was I trying to impress? No idea. But the urge uprooted me again, pulling me across the country to work at ESPN. I left behind the closest friendships of my life, and my future wife, in search of something.

After seven years in sports media, I’m still searching.

Now, as I embark on my journey in journalism at NYU, I’m trying to define not where I’m from, but where I’m coming from. Why now, at the age of 31, am I pressing reset on my career? Why now, with a wife and baby at home, am I entering an industry in the throes of financial crisis?

To be honest, I can’t answer those questions quite yet. All I can do is look back and analyze the fragments of fading memories that have formed into a kind of belief system.

Ironically, it started with Fox News.

My early political opinions were forged in the aftermath of 9/11, watching The O’Reilly Factor every night with my dad. I never enjoyed Bill O’Reilly’s shtick or his politics, but devoid of other voices, I unknowingly internalized some of his talking points over the years.

In retrospect, I don’t know why O’Reilly was on in my house because my whole family leans heavily left. (At least they do now.) Perhaps we were swept up in Shock and Awe nationalism. Nonetheless, Fox News was the political soundtrack playing through my formative years.

As I inched closer to adulthood, I started to see news and politics through my own eyes.

I came of age in 2008, during Barack Obama’s rise to political stardom. I attended an Obama rally in Phoenix that year, which was packed with young, energized progressives chanting ‘Si, Se Puede’! It was an intoxicating experience. It was also the first and last campaign event I’ve ever attended.

I don’t care for politics. I vote in national elections and do my best to read the local voter’s guide before heading to the polls, but I find “politics as sport” exhausting. I’m a registered Democrat but not a party-line voter. In the last two presidential elections, I found myself voting against one candidate, rather than for the other.

Frankly, I’m disillusioned with American democracy, not in principle, but in practice. I believe in the American experiment and the ideals set forth in the Constitution. I believe the individual liberties laid out in the Bill of Rights are critical for this country to survive, which is not a foregone conclusion.

I also believe:

  • Without the establishment clause of the First Amendment, the United States would look more like a theocracy than a democratic republic. Even still, the religious majority uses its cultural capital to influence legislation and codify their beliefs into law. This is deeply unsettling to me.
  • The Second Amendment has been co-opted as a political rallying cry by those who would benefit financially from arms manufacturing. I believe the definition of a “well-regulated militia” allows for constitutionally valid gun control measures that do not infringe upon the right to bear arms.
  • The U.S. is trending toward a police state and the right to peaceably assemble is under attack. I do not believe in “abolish the police” but I do believe funneling military surplus to local law enforcement agencies isn’t meant to “serve and protect” the people.
  • Protections from the Fourth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments are not equitably enforced. Stop-and-frisk, cash bail and excessive pre-trial jailing disproportionately impact the poor and people of color. I believe for-profit prisons to be morally suspect and possibly unconstitutional.
  • Freedom of speech and a free press are the cornerstones of a functioning democracy. The orchestrated denigration of the news media as the “enemy of the people” is an echo of authoritarianism. We should all be concerned with how quickly the tactic took hold.

Like I said, I don’t care for politics. But I do care for the rule of law, if those laws are written and enforced according to the equal protections clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is where my personal beliefs intersect with my interest in journalism.

As it stands, I believe much of the media industry is falling short of its duty as a free press, worthy of the protections granted by the Constitution. Working in corporate media, I saw first-hand how business interests can influence how a story is framed, or whether there is a story at all.

Of course, I was working in entertainment, so the impact of such decisions on our low-stakes sports stories was minimal. The same can’t be said for the hegemonic institutions of news and politics that hold sway over public opinion, civic participation and — in some capacity — policy. Such institutions need to take a side, specifically, the side of the people. The obsession with objectivity at-all-costs has a cost.

In my opinion, journalism is not objective; it is pro-democracy. Journalism is fair; and journalism is fact. But journalists are not unfeeling stenographers, resigned to idle observance while anti-democratic actors degrade the very document that gives the press its power.

As I consider the future of journalism, which in turn means the future of American democracy, one thing is clear: activism in the defense of our national identity is okay. The free press is expressly protected by the Constitution; it’s time for the press to return the favor and protect the other freedoms therein.

That form of journalism is a future I want to be part of. The search is finally over.

And that’s where I’m coming from.

To learn more about Jeff and his work, connect with him on LinkedIn.

by on

‘My focus is on those who have less power’: Lithuanian journalist Karolis Vyšniauskas shares his worldview

Karolis Vyšniauskas in the recording studio in Vilnius, Lithuania. Photography by Karolis Pilypas Liutkevičius, NARA

Karolis Vyšniauskas is a journalist from Lithuania, currently studying Media Innovation at NYU. He helped establish NARA, the pioneering longform journalism and media education space in Lithuania, where he has worked as an editor, membership manager and podcast host. This is his “Coming From” statement.

The first time I felt the power of journalism was when I was a teenager, spending too much time on video games. It was the early 2000s, a strange time when you could subscribe to a print magazine about the digital world.

And that is what I did. The magazine was called Kompiuterija and I would read it all, cover to cover.

The editor of Kompiuterija was encouraging readers to send their own stories for the magazine. I wrote a review of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and, to my surprise, it was published. The feeling of seeing your article on paper was one of a kind. Getting paid for that didn’t hurt as well. Especially when you are 14.

But the most important thing was that journalism connected me with other people. In the next issue, someone wrote an answer to my review. We, the readers of the magazine, were talking, even though we had never met each other in real life.

At that time, I lived in a village in Lithuania and went to school in a small city next to it. I knew that there was a big world out there and I wondered if journalism could be my way to reach it.

Eventually, that is exactly what happened. I felt a similar sensation many times, for example, when hosting a radio show alone in a Lithuanian National Radio studio, knowing that there were many people out there who were listening, I just didn’t see them. Or when doing one-on-one interviews that would later be read by many people who are not in the room with you and your interviewee.

Of course, there are so many ways for people to connect now. Journalism is not the most powerful and definitely not the easiest one to do that. It’s almost archaic.

But I like it, because the journalistic way of communicating is different. It’s more enlightening. When journalism is done right, people become more fulfilled versions of themselves. The journalistic way of talking allows me to ask questions I would otherwise struggle to ask. And why would those people talk to me anyway?

Journalistic practice allows me and my interviewees to talk about topics that society struggles to uncover, such as mental health, inequality or sexual misconduct. In “normal” life you rarely start your conversation with people about those topics. In the journalistic approach, if people trust you, you can do that straight away.

So this is what journalism is for me: it is a way to make new, more informed and more honest connections. I see my job as a facilitator of this process. That is my role in society, that is why I am useful.

However, there are a few rules and observations that are worth knowing when engaging with my work. Let me share them with you.

  • My focus is on those who have less power. It doesn’t mean that they are always right. But I don’t want to be a journalist who is serving only the elites. There are many other industries that do that.
  • I believe that we have enough material and mental resources for our societies to flourish. But we are failing to use them. Uncovering the “why” and “how” of that is one of the goals of my work.
  • Social media in 2021 is a polarizing and tiring place. Yet I am dependent on it to reach my readers and listeners. This tension is at the heart of my work and I am looking for ways to escape it.
  • My worldview is shaped by Lithuania, the country I was born in and where I have been living for more than 30 years. Even in my international coverage, the worldview from Lithuania might be present and I may not be aware of it.
  • In my work I tend to criticize many aspects of today’s Lithuania, including its conservative political class and our inability to deal with the country’s history. But my criticism is an act of good faith. I want our society to grow. I love Lithuania, that is why I criticize it.
  • I think that too many journalists in Lithuania side with the powerful. I find more kinship with people from Lithuanian human rights organizations. Sometimes we do projects together. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t point out the problems in these organizations.
  • I feel like my worldview is limited to European and American spaces. I am learning the Russian language to understand the Russian world better. I want to engage more in Middle Eastern, African, Asian and Latin cultures. I’m afraid my lifetime won’t be enough to do that.
  • I think that the greatest issue for our generation is the climate crisis and I don’t believe we, as the world, are capable of solving it. The shadow of climate catastrophe is always at the back of my mind as I think about my future.
  • I think the change that I, as a single journalist, can achieve, is very small. On the grand scale of things, my articles or podcast episodes are just bits in the internet machine. I know this. And yet I also know that I can sometimes manage to reach people and achieve true connections. That makes it worth doing.

Learn more about Karolis and his work in Lithuania with NARA here.

by on

‘I’m concerned about people getting lost in the news’: Marcello Corrêa explains what drives him

Marcello Corrêa is a 32-year-old Brazilian journalist. Before moving to New York, he worked for O Globo newspaper as a Business and Economics reporter for nine years in Rio de Janeiro and Brasilia. He’s a graduate student at New York University and has a communications degree from Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. In his own words, Marcello tells us where he is coming from.

I decided to become a journalist because I like to write. That happened back in 2006, when I needed to choose what I wanted to study in college. Since then, my list of reasons to explain my career choices got broader and more complex. I learned about journalism’s role in helping people to make sense of the world and giving voice to those who are not usually listened to. I also got familiar with the struggles of the news industry to fulfill this mission. Figuring out how to solve those problems is one of the main drivers of my work today.

Image of Marcello Correa sitting in a park in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn
Marcello Corrêa tells his story from a park bench in Bed-Stuy, Brooklyn. Photo by Carla Nudel for ComingFrom.org.

Most of my worldview and opinions about journalism were shaped while working in the field. Before moving to New York to study, I covered macroeconomics and economics policy at O Globo, a major newspaper in Brazil, my home country.

The way I see journalism today is strongly influenced by my years in a traditional and national news organization. I was able to learn from some of the best professionals in the field and also do some work that I’m proud of. I’ve also seen new challenges arise in a fast-changing world, where it’s important not only to do great journalism, but to rethink your strategy to make sure you’re reaching the public where they are.

I noticed some of these challenges when I was covering a pension reform proposed by the Brazilian government in 2019 that would completely overhaul the pension system for both private sector employees and public workers. By then, I was working in Brasilia (Brazil’s capital) and could explain to anyone the details of how that bill would change people’s lives for decades. I wrote a lot about it, but I remember how lost in the news cycle some of my non-journalist friends and family members were during that coverage. My job was to keep up with the issue. But it was hard for them to follow what was going on and sort the reliable reporting from misinformation.

So that’s one big thing that you should know about me: I’m worried about people getting lost and finding it hard to understand the world around them. When that happens, democracy is in danger. I believe we should do a better job maintaining and improving the press. That’s why I’m at NYU studying new ways to build trust, innovate and adapt the industry to better serve communities.

But it’s not only professional experiences that shape how I see the world, so I’d also like to share some personal background here. I was born and raised in Rio de Janeiro. When asked about the city, I tend to talk more about issues like public security and inequality than about beautiful beaches (they are really beautiful and free, but pretty far from the majority of the population there).

You should also know that I’m a Black man and I’ve been reflecting a lot about my racial ancestry for the last few years. I’m coming from a country that was one of the latest to abolish slavery. It has been shaped by a false notion of racial democracy, which says that in Brazil there really is no discrimination or prejudice against non-whites, especially as compared to the U.S. That idea has blocked a deeper conversation around racism for years. Recently, authors such as Silvio Almeida and Djamila Ribeiro have overcome that block and become popular voices in Brazil. Their work inspires me to find ways to use my role as a journalist and informed citizen to collaborate in the fight for racial justice.

To learn more about Marcello and his work, follow him on Twitter.

by on

The Baffler’s decades-long history tells readers where they’re coming from

Most of the time, it is a serious matter when talking about mission statements, history or legacy. In the case of The Baffler, everything about its history, background, concerns and even financial issues is shared with splashes of humor and wit.


“The Baffler is America’s leading voice of interesting and unexpected left-wing political criticism, cultural analysis, short stories, poems and art. We publish six print issues annually, as well as online content every day of the cursed workweek,” reads the magazine’s About page.

In its History column, we learn more about where The Baffler is coming from.

“We’re owned by the tax-deductible (hint, hint) Baffler Foundation Inc., which is as charitable as a church, and a whole lot more fun. This foundation means we rely on your donations and subscriptions rather than chasing advertising. It also means we can’t endorse candidates for electoral office or try to make millions in profit. But hey, why would we want to do those things anyway?”

The Baffler
Read THE full statement

Below are a few reasons why we included The Baffler on ComingFrom.org:

Laughable, relevant criticism 

A flashback to one’s early days may be the most common way to give a brief definition of who we are. When The Baffler was born in 1988, the magazine stated its mission: to “laugh at the baffling jargon of academics and the commercial avant-garde.” Over time, its manifesto evolved:

  • The Baffler: “This magazine would move in the opposite direction. It would strive for the lucidity of independent critical intelligence. It would ‘blunt the cutting edge’ of the creative class gurus, financial journalists, entertainment moguls, cyber-entrepreneurs, and postmodern theorists who were said to be delivering the country from the pesky struggles and conflicts of the Cold War and singing a sweet and blissful lullaby they called the ‘end of history.’ Where there was money to be made.” 

Talk money like The Baffler

With no pie chart, no revenue stream, no angel investor and no other financial buzzwords, The Baffler describes its relationship to the tax-deductible Baffler Foundation, Inc. (plus a call for support), as well as its untraditional history with potential investors.

  • The Baffler: “The [magazine] was a cultural success, so the big money never touched it. The founders didn’t exactly cozy up to benefactors.”

At the same time, readers can skim through significant (and tragic) incidents that led to changes in the magazine’s operation, like a 2001 fire that swept through The Baffler‘s Chicago office, but not its ethos.

  • The Baffler: “The regular publication never resumed. But the magazine never folded. … Around Labor Day in 2010, though, the founding crew had had enough, and decided to turn over the keys to the operation neither to a university creative writing program nor to a great publishing house, but to a smaller, poorer, and less experienced crew in Cambridge, Massachusetts.”

by on

‘These values are like a constitution’: Axel Springer expects all employees to commit to its political view

Axel Springer is a German media and tech organization founded in the 1940’s. The company, which owns such brands as Bild and Insider, is named after a journalist who was once called “Germany’s Rupert Murdoch.” Springer died in 1985, but his worldview is still the baseline for the company’s principles and values, internally known as The Essentials. The mission statement includes the support of causes such as the right of existence of the State of Israel, a united Europe and the transatlantic alliance between the U.S. and Europe.

“These values are like a constitution, they apply to every employee of our company.”

Mathias Döpfner, CEO of axel springer

The Essentials were originally written in 1967 by Springer himself. The guidelines were in the media industry conversation in the fall of 2021, when the German company bought Politico – a U.S.-based media company focused on politics – for more than $1 billion. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Axel Springer’s CEO Mathias Döpfner told the newspaper he expects Politico’s journalists to adhere to the company’s principles, although they won’t have to sign a commitment letter – something demanded from German employees.

Read the full statement

Why did we select this example?

This case study is significantly different from others we present in this space. Axel Springer’s approach is unusual and extreme. The company is willing to let employees go if they are not committed to its principles. As Döpfner told the WSJ, if people have a problem with any of the values the organization stands for, they “should not work for Axel Springer, very clearly.”

In the Coming From project, we analyze the contrast between the “view from nowhere” and the alternative, that journalists and media outlets do have some points of view. This is an example that goes in the very opposite direction of denying an agenda. The company not only has some topics of interest, but those causes inform how the organization manages its staff.

In September, New York Times media columnist Ben Smith asked an Axel Springer spokesman if they would fire a Politico employee who thinks Israel should be a binational state. The response was: “of course not.”

“The Essentials is by no means a call for our journalists to push a political agenda with their reporting or to report uncritically on certain topics. Editorial independence is one of our unshakeable principles.”

Malte Wienker, Axel Springer Spokesman

Transparency with readers

It is not totally clear what happens if someone disagrees with The Essentials, but it is important to notice that Axel Springer could be more transparent with the readers of its brands about those principles.

By the time this article was published, the company had ownership of more than 50 publications. We browsed some of the more famous: Bild, Politico and Insider. None of them had clearly stated The Essentials on their own pages. It could be a better approach to let readers know what is seen as an internal code of conduct to increase trust and transparency.

Notice: Axel Springer was in the news around the time of this publication because of an investigation into sexual misconduct by Julian Reichelt, a high-level Bild editor, with a junior employee at the German tabloid, the flagship brand of the company. Reichelt was removed in late October 2021.

by on

ProPublica’s journalists are clear: They want impact

Established in 2007, ProPublica.org (the first digital-only newsroom to win the Pulitzer Prize) sets a standard for nonprofit media of our time. In addition to being innovators in crowdsourcing, the newsroom is also ahead of the curve in being transparent about their goals.

The stated mission is to “expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing.”

ProPublica journalists are clear that for them it’s not enough to inform about wrongdoings – they want their journalism to have a real-life impact.

read the full statement

Here is what stands out from ProPublica‘s statement.

Public interest impact

They have a separate page on their website dedicated solely to the impact of ProPublica’s journalism.

  • ProPublica: “Among other positive changes, our reporting has contributed to the passage of new laws; reversals of harmful policies and practices; and accountability for leaders at local, state and national levels.”

One example is the story of Grace, a black teen who was jailed in Michigan for not doing her online coursework. ProPublica Illinois was the first to report on the story and eventually Grace was released from a juvenile detention facility.

Why the approach matters

The crucial rule about the Impact Approach is that ProPublica’s impact has to be in the public interest (as opposed to corporate or government interests). As NYU professor Jay Rosen, the initiator of the Coming From project, put it in a recent essay, “This is a kind of agenda. But it’s compatible with the principles of good journalism, and it tells people what to expect.”

by on

Voice of San Diego pursues journalism with purpose

Voice of San Diego (VOSD) was launched in 2005 after founders Neil Morgan and Buzz Woolley “felt the region desperately needed more reporting, analysis and journalistic competition.” It is considered the first digital nonprofit news organization created to serve a local community.

In its “What We Stand For” piece, the outlet provides mainly two things: a clear definition of what it’s trying to achieve and what values and concerns guide reporters in this mission. As NYU professor Jay Rosen wrote in a recent essay, that’s a way to say: “here’s where we’re coming from with our journalism.”

“Journalism is best when pursued with purpose. It is easy to take stances against small problems but we want to tackle San Diego’s big problems. When we do that, reporters and editors should be clear about what they’re trying to achieve.”

voice of san diego
read the full statement

Here is what stands out from the VOSD statement:

A clear set of values and concerns

How does a newsroom decide what is newsworthy? It’s not that easy for a reader to figure out why some topics are news and others aren’t. That’s why it’s interesting to see VOSD clearly state its main topics of interest, based on what it considers to be the community’s concerns. This is the list:

  • Government transparency, open meetings and accountability.
  • A well-informed, well-educated community ready to participate in civic affairs.
  • Government agencies that are just, efficient and excellent.
  • High quality education for all children.
  • Quality housing that is affordable to all residents.
  • World class infrastructure that supports free enterprise and job creation.
  • A robust and inclusive arts and culture scene.
  • A clean environment, healthy ecosystem
  • Preparations for the long-term challenges of drought, energy supply and climate change.

A guide for staff

It’s not just the audience that benefits from a Coming From statement. In this excerpt, VOSD explains that the list of shared values help reporters and editors to guide their work.

  • VOSD: “Voice of San Diego’s staff and trustees adopted this list of shared values to help illuminate what we’re pursuing and give reporters the mandate to pursue them aggressively and irreverently.”

by on

‘Journalists are not bystanders’: Shasta Scout rejects objectivity with real examples

In September 2021, Shasta Scout – a news organization serving Shasta County, in California – broke a story about how the Redding City Council was planning a closed session to discuss selling parcels of riverfront land to private investors. As other outlets jumped in, the nonprofit decided to give readers some context: why Scout’s coverage was different from other local media.

Usually, institutions that decide to be more open about where they’re coming from do that through a permanent statement. Shasta Scout does have an About page, where readers can find information about funding and editorial standards. That is important, but it’s not what we’re highlighting in this summary. This case is all about how a news site can walk its audience through an ongoing coverage plan and build trust by explaining its intentions and process.

“Journalists are not bystanders. The words we use, the people we choose to seek comment from, the history we choose to retell, and the subjects we focus on are just some of the ways we actively participate in shaping our reader’s understanding of their community. This is a responsibility we don’t take lightly, but it’s real and it’s inescapable. Bias is unavoidable. Objectivity is a false goal. Everyone is telling a story through a lens. And we are too.”

shasta scout
read the full statement

Here is a breakdown of how Shasta Scout does this:

A disclosure about objectivity

Before delving into the details on how their values influence their coverage, Shasta Scout’s journalists acknowledge that they are not seeking objectivity, but fairness and truth. It’s a powerful statement that puts everyone on the same page right at the beginning of the text.

The power of real examples

After disclosing what some of their core beliefs are, Shasta Scout’s statement guides the readers through some aspects of how the organization is covering the land development deal. For example, the text explains why the news outlet chooses to cover the “climate” instead of the “weather” – an analogy about focusing on the big story, rather than on events and immediate consequences.

This point is supported by the coverage’s angle:

  • Shasta Scout: “We prioritize stories that look at systems, not just symptoms. Is the way the city agendizes real estate information working for the public? Should past precedent or policy be the driving factor in how the city discusses such information in future? Does Redding have a pattern of engaging in land deals that are less than fully transparent?”

Explaining why it is important to add context

Shasta Scout stands for adding more depth to the coverage with historical background, commentary and context. That is another way to guide readers about what they can expect while reading their coverage.

  • Shasta Scout: “We’re not interested in shallow reporting. Repackaged press releases aren’t real journalism.  That’s why we take the time to examine the historical, societal, and political forces and events that shape the news we share. And it’s why we’re focused on reaching out to feature diverse and representative voices as we find ways to share it. Context deepens the news, commentary broadens it, and analysis takes a magnifying glass to current events in a way that provides greater benefit to the reader. All are essential to strong, democracy-building journalism.”

Note: We’d like to thank Marc Dadigan, Contributing Editor from Shasta Scout for recommending this example for consideration in the Coming From Collection.

by on

The Dispatch is ‘informed by conservative principles,’ not held hostage by them

Launched entirely on Substack, The Dispatch is a digital media company with a full content offering, including newsletters and podcasts, that specializes in politics, policy and culture, “informed by conservative principles.” Because it has an ideological lean, it would be easy for The Dispatch to devolve into an echo chamber of conservative commentary. Instead, the newsroom relies on that transparency to build trust with readers, whether they agree with The Dispatch or not.

“We don’t apologize for our conservatism. Some of the best journalism is done when the author is honest with readers about where he or she is coming from, and some of the very worst journalism hides behind a pretense of objectivity and the stolen authority that pretense provides.”

The Dispatch
READ THE FULL STATEMENT

There’s a lot to learn from The Dispatch practicing transparency. Here are some highlights:

A stated agenda

The Dispatch doesn’t hide from its conservative roots. Instead, it leans into its political leaning. The Dispatch thus dispels any notion of unearned neutrality. This allows journalists to go about their work “without some unstated agenda,” because there is, in fact, a stated agenda: fact-based reporting and commentary through a conservative lens.

  • The Dispatch: “When we provide analysis, we will endeavor to describe the opposing points of view with honesty and charity. When we report, we will do so without concern for whether the facts prove inconvenient to any party or politician.”

They don’t force balance

The Dispatch offers a Fact Check product, which aims to identify and correct false claims arising from the news cycle or social media, including “outright disinformation.” As The Dispatch puts it, such viral falsehoods are “to the detriment of our national discourse.”

But how does an openly conservative publication approach fact-checking? Factually, as it were.

  • The Dispatch: “It’s not always accurate or necessarily in the public interest to try to force a perfect balance. There may be times when one ‘side’ is subjected to a higher percentage of our fact checks because there are relevant people making a disproportionate amount of false claims.”

This methodology proves out. The Dispatch Fact Check flagged false statements by both President Biden and former President Trump, while also exonerating Biden, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in cases of misinformation. By not forcing balance, The Dispatch can accurately depict an unbalanced information ecosystem, despite its political inclination.