The legal discussion is nicely presented, but I am also interested in the news v narrative struggle: > ... journalism professors have publicly called for an en

The legal discussion is nicely presented, but I am also interested in the news v narrative struggle: > ... journalism professors have publicly called for an end of objectivity in journalism as too constraining for reporters in seeking “social justice.” This trend toward advocacy journalism has led to polls showing record lows in terms of trust for the media. The cost of the changing view of journalism may not only be in the loss of core trust but of core legal protections. I am firmly in the camp of separating news from comment. Certainly, run a comment piece next to the news piece, but don't present opinion as news. As an aside, many years ago as a sub-editor (copy editor) on a UK tabloid, we would often have to run our work past the lawyers. There could be three broad outcomes. 1 - Story marked legally clean, fine to publish. 2 - Story must add legal marks raised by the lawyers, and be checked again. 3 - Story marked "commercially acceptable risk". Number 3 was what you were aiming for if you wanted job security and/or promotion.