Should Journalism Take Sides?

In recent weeks, in Italy there has been quite a bit of debate about neutrality in journalism.

This debate stems from the Gaza war — and I'm deliberately using the definition from Wikipedia, because I don't want this newsletter to become yet another place where people divide over which side to condemn and which to absolve or defend (especially since there aren't just "two sides": beyond Israel, meaning Netanyahu's Israeli government, and Hamas, there are Palestinian and Israeli civilians, settlers, opposition movements, and so on).

This debate emerged in Italy through a public exchange between two prominent figures in digital journalism. Francesco Costa, editor-in-chief of Il Post (Italy's leading digital-first newspaper that insists on clear explanation, fact‐checking and providing context), dedicated an episode of his podcast Wilson to explaining why, if news organizations want to do their job properly, they shouldn't take sides. Costa argues that a newspaper shouldn't take positions — it should report facts as accurately as possible, give voice to diverse viewpoints, and let readers form their own opinions. The goal is objectivity, and taking sides means abandoning that ambition, turning journalism into propaganda (even when it's propaganda for a just cause), and above all losing credibility with anyone who doesn't share that position.

Alberto Puliafito, a journalist and media consultant, responded in his newsletter The Slow Journalist that this is an illusion. Creating a newspaper is inherently a political act: you choose what goes on the front page and what doesn't, which sources to trust, how to write headlines, how much space to give a story. The idea of being neutral risks becoming a convenient alibi for not having to explicitly justify your editorial choices. Better to be honest: declare where you stand, make your criteria transparent, and allow readers to evaluate information knowing from which perspective it's being presented.

Of course this debate is not limited to Italy or Europe. The question of journalistic neutrality has become particularly fraught in recent years across all the media landscape. Perhaps the most striking recent example came in October 2024, when The Washington Post declined to endorse either candidate in the US presidential race, breaking with decades of tradition. The decision, reportedly made by owner Jeff Bezos over the objections of the editorial board, sparked massive subscriber cancellations and staff resignations. The stated reason was a return to "neutrality" — and that brings back to our topics.

Now, I'm a journalist myself. I cover culture, which doesn't completely shield me from dealing with delicate topics, though not as systematically as political reporters. But this isn't just professional interest: I studied philosophy, and the question of objective knowledge is central to epistemology (the branch of philosophy that investigates knowledge itself). My impression is that the debate about neutrality and objectivity in journalism is often poorly framed — it uses categories that don't work well for understanding what actually happens when we produce or consume news.