There are many differences between advocacy and objective journalism. These variances are vital in differentiating the writer from the journalist and can define a reputation and status in the media.
War reporters have the difficulty of choosing the path between advocacy and objectivity as each path has its positive and negative traits and dependent on beliefs, morals, and style, the choice can determine what type of writer you are.
With objective journalism, the journalist must endeavour to keep opinions, personal beliefs and morals out of the story they are writing, incorporating only facts that are backed up by evidence, usually expected to use quotes to support facts, and it profoundly depends on third-party statements to build the body of the story,
A journalist who practices objective journalism begins with an intention of uncovering truth and facts, giving unbiased and equal weight to every side, aiming to set aside personal beliefs for the sake of the story at hand. It profoundly features all the findings of any major participant in a story presenting both or all sides as evenly and as unbiased as possible.
In advocacy journalism, reflects nature and incorporates opinion whilst supporting a particular outcome and often promotes a particular cause, political, environmental or social
A person, who practices journalism of the advocacy kind, often starts a story to endorse
certain causes or believes, using their opinions and beliefs to shape the story. It usually supports specifically, one point of view and the journalist tends to give people who share this point of view precedence over others, sometimes setting aside information from other perspectives entirely.
‘If we are ever to create meaningful change, advocacy journalism will be the single most crucial element to enable the necessary organizing.’ (Berman, 2004)