When we lose empathy in journalism, we lose our voice
Journalism gives us unlimited access to different and sometimes contrasting world views. As journalists, we aim to tell human stories with conviction and compassion. Yet, the capacity to simply consider the emotions of others seems like unfamiliar territory for most mainstream journalists. Some argue that we cannot teach empathy. Even the willingness to develop a mutual understanding has become rare in many relationships.
When telling stories of social justice, journalists create windows that peer into the lives of others. But as a result, reporters must grapple with the emotional intensity of violence, discrimination, poverty, and death.
They could connect with a displaced family who struggles to feed their malnourished children in their home—under a freeway on-ramp. They may meet an abused trans teenager whose parents wake them up every morning with slurs. They might interview a sobbing parent who just learned their child was shot dead in their kindergarten classroom. That’s our reality, and we cannot avoid it.
Yet every day, we see people adamantly resist others’ uncomfortable experiences. It’s rare to see someone consider others’ perspectives with intention. But journalists must make efforts to curb this trend by understanding the emotions, beliefs, and social positioning of others before putting their pen to paper (or their fingertips to keys).
Qualities of empathy serve not just our interviewee but also help us process the bombardment of negative emotions that coincide with tragedy. Compassion augments the connections we build through reporting. It enables us to check our biases and broaden our points of view. It allows us to maximize accuracy and avoid misconstruing a soundbite in an interview.
Of course, as humans with a natural predisposition to judgment, it’s impossible to completely avoid preconceived notions about a person, group, or idea. But we must take moments to separate ourselves from these entrenched beliefs or attitudes.
Journalists must look to shift perspectives and inspire others to pause and evaluate before acting on prejudices. This sometimes requires an openness to discomfort. But electing to take on distress is a sacrifice we make as journalists; it becomes necessary to challenge stereotypes, expose injustice, and galvanize change for the underprivileged.
That is not to say that we must serve purely as symbiotes in our practices and serve only to absorb the emotions of others. Journalists should be impartial in their reporting, but not at the expense of shielding their voices. Elements of objectivity are essential to enable open interpretation—a chance for readers to develop their ideas based on the factual information presented. However, an over-reliance on neutrality carries the danger of upholding the status quo and stunting progression. In the face of social justice crises, we must commit ourselves to dismantle the horrors that stand before us. We cannot simply stay emotionless when covering social or political catastrophes. Doing so would be a disservice to truthful reporting.
Historical icons like Ida B. Wells challenged the heinous injustices interwoven into the social order and systems during her time. Though she directly lived through the horrors of that age, as a persecuted Black woman born into slavery, she still put herself in the shoes of the lynched to paint a vivid picture of the brutality. Among the chaos of violence and murder, she extracted humanity. She used emotional sensibility in her writing. She considered her audience and molded her written language in a way that could be understood by those who were primarily illiterate at the time. As a result, she inspired change within those impacted by the normalization of injustices.
It should go without saying that people are not subjects to be exploited as clickbait. From fostering a safe, friendly, and supportive atmosphere to simply being responsive in conversation, developing a trusting bond with your respondent is vital for building a solid story. To convey compelling vignettes of people’s lives, we must develop relationships and acknowledge our appreciation to them for sharing their stories, which necessitates empathy. Without this, we cannot dive deep to uncover and lift the voices of others.
Empathy allows us to humanize the brutality that oppressed groups endure. Readers feel a sense of urgency when journalists transform them from abstract figures into real people. As journalists, many of us hold privileges in many respects (of course, some more than others). But with our voices, we all currently share one common advantage. Given our position and education, we are responsible for using our privileges for good. If achieved, our stories can become a microcosm of social history—and hopefully, a trajectory for change.