This is a good example of advocacy journalism with a clear and well defined point of view. Although this show is well done and creatively produced, it is not the "investigative journal" it claims to be. Emily Howard is a competent host and a decent interviewer but this is a program for those who already know what they think, not those who are rationally considering the issues.
Delivering on the promise to be a show about social movements, this episode features two interviews with advocates of the pro-choice movement. To the extent that the host and guests explore this topic together from one side of this issue, I suppose we can call this an "investigation." If this were a journalistically balanced program we'd hear at least something from the other side of the issue. This show preaches to the choir and leaves little room for differing opinions.
I am sure Emily is totally convinced of the "mission" to which she is committed. I personally admire and respect her idealism. I suggest that she could have more impact as a journalist in a more traditional sense, by helping listeners weigh the issues in a balanced fashion.
Having said all this, I must congratulate Ms. Howard for creating an upbeat presentation. This show is more cleverly packaged than many advocacy programs of its type.
Programmers should know that this show is dated by the news update at the beginning of the show and the references to the 2006 election and a promotion of an event scheduled to happen in December.
Review of Movements
John Hingsbergen
Posted on March 29, 2007 at 05:12 PM
This is a good example of advocacy journalism with a clear and well defined point of view. Although this show is well done and creatively produced, it is not the "investigative journal" it claims to be. Emily Howard is a competent host and a decent interviewer but this is a program for those who already know what they think, not those who are rationally considering the issues.
Delivering on the promise to be a show about social movements, this episode features two interviews with advocates of the pro-choice movement. To the extent that the host and guests explore this topic together from one side of this issue, I suppose we can call this an "investigation." If this were a journalistically balanced program we'd hear at least something from the other side of the issue. This show preaches to the choir and leaves little room for differing opinions.
I am sure Emily is totally convinced of the "mission" to which she is committed. I personally admire and respect her idealism. I suggest that she could have more impact as a journalist in a more traditional sense, by helping listeners weigh the issues in a balanced fashion.
Having said all this, I must congratulate Ms. Howard for creating an upbeat presentation. This show is more cleverly packaged than many advocacy programs of its type.
Programmers should know that this show is dated by the news update at the beginning of the show and the references to the 2006 election and a promotion of an event scheduled to happen in December.