In 10 quick minutes our boy Hank Green lays out the basic foundations of utilitarianism. He gives us a rundown of not only older versions of this theory, but also provides us with two more modern approaches.
We love a knowledgeable Green.
At it’s very base, utilitarianism looks at the consequences of an action rather than the intent. Morally, you must chose the option that provides the most happiness for the group.
Essentially, the end goal is happiness and pleasure to avoid pain.
But of course there are a couple of grievances with this theory. Is the suffering of some worth the happiness of most? Somehow the moral dilemmas always involve gruesome death. To this extent, modern utilitarians argue that no moral theory should demand the taking of a life.
Modern utilitarianism argues that you are to choose the action that produces the greatest good for the greatest number, but includes that we should also have base rules that likely lead to the greatest good for the greatest number.
This way no one lives in fear of being a part of the few sacrificed souls.
But this theory explains/ justifies journalism I used to think was a big no no.
The Black Press was revolutionary and changed the narrative for Black folks in the late 1800s, early 1900s, and for years to come.
African American newspapers were the strongest institution in Black America. They created and stabilized communities, employed thousands, and with a pen as their weapon- The Black Press were soldiers without swords.
Now, I’m relatively new to journalism but I was under the assumption that objective journalism was the bees knees. Coverage that had the slightest ‘bias’, or conflict of interest, wasn’t taken seriously in journalism.
BUT
This theory, coupled with the documentary The Black Press: Soldiers Without Swords, made me realize just how important it is for BIPOC reporters to cover issues that very much affect us.
I feel silly writing this down because it seems like a no brainer, but I swear this is what I thought.
The segment that really drove this home was “Standing Up for the Race”.
Robert Sengstacke Abbott sent the Black publication, The Chicago Defender, into the South. Abbott’s paper reached more than half a million people per week.
The Defender said what Black people in the South couldn’t.
The Defender validated Black folk’s experiences and soon afforded folks more freedoms. Metaphorical and physical freedoms.
This has me circling back to questions about neutrality and what that means as far as journalistic integrity is concerned.
If we’re not neutral while covering stories that very much affect us, we lose integrity as journalists.
As a BIPOC journalist if you seek to maximize information (*happiness?*) to minimize the harms you are a modern utilitarian.
*Happiness: assuming that the information provided is representative and validates experiences, information that could potentially save lives/ mobilize the public??? leading to a more equitable tomorrow? Idk maybe this one is a stretch*
Now, it’s about AUDIENCE more so than staying neutral.
Our integrity within our communities is what matters.
Providing information about ICE Raids, protests and mobilization, how to defend yourself against law enforcement, and so much more IS where our integrity as journalists lies.
Neutrality has no place in situations of injustice.
Good stuff and my apologies if this is under explained or all over the place. I didn’t want this to turn into a dissertation.
lupita rivera 
Leave a reply to Deidre Pike Cancel reply