In feminism we trust! On how feminist standpoint epistemologies shape journalism practices in two argentine digital newsrooms

Abstract

In this exploratory study, I conduct a textual analysis of the online content produced by two Argentine feminist news outlets, LatFem and Diario Digital Femenino (DDF) to examine how feminist standpoint epistemologies (FSE) shape news-making. The findings show that these newsrooms showcase features of a strong reflexivity which allows journalists to consider their own position in the social fabric, to contextualize their journalistic practices, and to question instances of systemic discrimination. Furthermore, the use of FSE enables the expression of solidarity and advocacy by reporters. I argue that the intervention to journalism as performed by feminist Argentine journalists and editors yields profound transformations to journalism practice and news content, as FSE destabilize and complicate traditional notions of journalistic objectivity and its role in democratic societies.

Keywords

Journalism studies feminism standpoint theory advocacy journalism Argentina

Public service and advocacy have been at the heart of Latin American journalism since the 1980s (Waisbord, 2000, 2008). Differently from Western journalism, which prioritizes objectivity (Rosen, 1993; Tuchman, 1972), Latin American reporters focus on the denunciation of abuses of power by the state and economic elites and see themselves mainly as watchdogs, especially in moments of political tension (Mellado et al., 2012). As journalism in this region rarely shies away from political commentary and even activism, the epistemologies carried out by the profession often become explicitly tangled with the reporters’ location in the social network and political spectrum.

In this exploratory study, I examine the content of two digital news outlets in Argentina, LatFem and Diario Digital Femenino (DDF), which claim to use feminism to deploy a more credible, reflexive, and rigorous journalism. The emergence of feminist news outlets provides a valuable opportunity to revisit the political foundations of Latin American journalism in a time when economic, technological, and political shifts have challenged journalism’s authority in an increasingly fragmented and transnational public sphere (Peters and Broersma, 2013). In this study, then, I observe how feminism informs practices and narratives in these outlets to explore the implications of a merger between journalism and feminist politics.

To guide my analysis, I use feminist standpoint theory, which enables critiques journalism practices and values, particularly the notion of objectivity. Despite objectivity not being central to journalism practice in Latin America (Waisbord, 2000) and being fiercely contested in other geopolitical contexts (Raeijmaekers and Maeseele, 2017), its influence in determining and legitimizing “professional routines, editorial procedures and socialization processes” in newsrooms still looms large (Hanitzsch, 2009: 413). With feminist journalists in the region taking issue with objectivity and reporting practices that contribute to gendered violence (Hasan and Gil, 2014), it is relevant to conduct localized and politically sensitive analyses of journalism that consider the circumstances in which politics of all kinds structure newsrooms, news content, and journalism practices.

Feminist epistemologies & strong reflexivity in journalism

Standpoint theory examines the connections between knowledge production and power. In her Marxist analysis of gender relations, Hartsock (1983) argued that women’s position in capitalist Western societies enabled deeper analyses of systemic oppression that could identify discourse and social texts, including science, as ideological practices aimed at disguising the power relations that shape knowledge production. Standpoint theory, then, exposes all knowledge to be socially and historically anchored with knowledge production always operating within a network of influences that usually benefit those in power (Harding, 1993, 2004; Smith, 1990).

The starting point of standpoint theory … is that in societies stratified by race, ethnicity, class, gender, sexuality, or some other such politics shaping the very structure of a society, the activities of those at the top both organize and set limits on what persons who perform such activities can understand about themselves and the world around them (Harding, 1993: 54).

Knowledge, then, is not produced in apolitical spaces. Those who have power to produce knowledge get to establish the criteria of what counts as valid knowledge. Harding (1993) argued that, in this situation, norms like objectivity are operationalized in a way not even the most rigorous execution of the scientific method would help researchers to detect “sexist and androcentric assumptions that are the ‘dominant beliefs of an age’” (p.52). To achieve a less distorted knowledge, Harding (1993) suggests acknowledging the perspectives, values, and biases embedded in knowledge claims.

This discussion about the politics of knowledge production has implications for journalism, a field invested in the notion of objectivity (Rosen, 1993; Hanitzsch et al., 2011). The paradigm of objectivity in journalism contends that journalists must produce value-free accounts of society and events, and it has become entangled with other notions, such as fairness and balance, that require neutrality from news professionals (Muñoz-Torres, 2012). Journalism studies scholars have found that objectivity, apart from being an ill-conceived ideal that reproduces the mistaken premises of positivism (Muñoz-Torres, 2012), constrains journalism to the confines of an artificial yet naturalized social consensus (Raeijmaekers and Maeseele, 2017). This way, instead of enabling accurate and truthful readings of reality, objectivity renders journalistic narratives that reproduce and legitimize existing social hierarchies and inequities (Hackett, 1984). Furthermore, Tuchman (1972) has argued that objectivity is better understood as a strategic ritual that allows journalists to protect themselves from criticism over bias.

Using standpoint theory, Durham (1998) proposes a reframing of objectivity that, instead of seeking value-free knowledge, incorporates multiple situated epistemologies—particularly marginalized ones—to the process of truth making. Without giving in to relativistic accounts of reality, a “strong reflexivity” would require a critical examination of the journalist and the citizens’ positionalities within uneven power structures to properly situate their knowledge claims and their implications (Durham, 1998; Steiner, 2018). Steiner (2012) further notes that adopting feminist standpoint epistemology (FSE) provides philosophies and methods that could help journalists critically examine their own beliefs by centering and taking seriously knowledge claims by people marginalized by imperialism, racism, and heterosexism. Strong reflexivity calls for journalists to not assign authority exclusively to the statements of the powerful and the privileged. This reflexivity, then, would allow journalists to openly acknowledge the practices and ideologies that shape their reporting.

As journalists are called to examine their own role in social power dynamics vis-à-vis their relationship to individuals and institutions, FSE destabilizes the notion of detachment that comes with objectivity. In other words, FSE allows journalists to acknowledge that they are also social actors in their stories with their position shaping their understanding of issues, their approach to and relationship with sources, and the narratives they produce (Durham, 1998; Steiner, 2012). This systematic evaluation of the elements influencing coverage helps reporters to situate their knowledge in the appropriate context, mitigating universalistic and, thus, irresponsible knowledge claims (Haraway, 1988; Steiner, 2012). This strong reflexivity, therefore, allows for a more “credible, ethical, socially, and epistemologically responsible journalism” (Steiner, 2018: p.1858).

Feminist standpoint in Latin American and Argentine journalism

In Latin America, feminist critiques and interventions to journalism have been tied to goals and priorities of feminist activisms across the region. This situates the work of feminist activists in the histories of civic advocacy journalism in Latin America, where groups seek changes in journalism as they see this institution as a tool for social transformation (Waisbord, 2008).

Latin American feminist agendas have centered issues of heterosexism, biodiversity, human trafficking and sex work, abortion, racism, poverty, and violence against women (Hasan and Gil, 2014). In more recent years, these feminisms have mobilized for issues such as femicide, ethnocide, militarization, consumerism, extractivism, and the oppression of indigenous peoples (Hasan and Gil, 2014). In the early 1990s, feminist journalists already had some presence in traditional and alternative newsrooms providing guidelines to adopt a gender perspective in journalism (Chaher, 2010).

The emergence of digital media enabled Latin American feminist activists to coordinate discourses and interventions, particularly those that targeted mainstream media and journalism. In the 1990s, many women reporters, editors, and activists developed critical examinations of professional standards in journalism. Latin American media workers and feminists created vibrant online networks—sustained by newsletters and email lists—to discuss and demonstrate how feminist epistemologies and gender perspectives could improve journalism practice (Hasan and Gil, 2014) and disrupt the media’s contribution to the oppression of women (Hasan, 2012).

In Argentina, professional groups such as Periodistas Argentinas en Red (PAR) emerged to advance the practice of feminist journalism. These groups argued that feminist journalism develops “a series of specifically journalistic practices that denaturalize the supposedly neutral role of the news professional, builds newsworthiness from a gender perspective, and provides a feminist critique of journalism institutions from a political perspective” (Hasan and Gil, 2014). To illustrate this, PAR posted a news piece about the protests for the legalization of abortion in Argentina titled We Abort Journalistic Objectivity, whose lead read:

We, feminist activists and communicators are tired of reporting on femicides, rapes, and machista violence … As “good journalists” we had to hide our positions. [We] had to be “objective, neutral, and impartial,” although that pose implied to watch day after day how women, trans men, and people with the ability to carry children lost their autonomy, rights, and many times even their lives (Rueda et al., 2018).

This critique of objectivity and the constraints it imposes to public debate and ethical journalistic practice resonates with that of scholars mentioned in the previous section. However, the disavowal of objectivity in Argentine journalism is also fueled by a historically contentious media-state relationship (Waisbord, 2000). Fear of economic or violent retaliation by the government—especially during the military dictatorships of the 1970s and 1980s—led editors of mainstream outlets to kill stories or tame the editorial line. After the Argentine media system became privatized and deregulated in the 1990s, media companies prioritized their economic interests, which often resulted in uncritical coverage of the government (Liotti, 2014). The Nestor Kirchner administration (2003–2007) set out to weaken the powerful media conglomerates and grow the communication capacities of the state into a hegemonic apparatus (Califano, 2009). Since then, both polarization and the bitter state-media relationship have worsened, leaving mainstream journalists trapped between political and economic interests that render their work as biased in the eyes of the public (Liotti, 2014).

Feminist journalism, as part of the alternative media ecosystem in Argentina, often takes adversarial stances against state oppression and how it permeates institutions. Therefore, objectivity is displaced to center feminist advocacy. Feminist journalists critique mainstream journalism and offer tools to disrupt heterosexist language and practices (Hasan and Gil, 2014). Beyond that, these networks have successfully influenced the state and media law. In 2009, the Argentinian Congress passed the Law of Audiovisual Services, which, among other things, aims to “promote the protection and safeguard of equality between men and women, the plural, egalitarian and stereotype-free treatment, avoiding all gender and sexual discrimination” (as quoted in Hasan and Gil, 2014: p.47). In 2009, Argentina also approved the Law of Integral Protection to Prevent, Sanction, and Eradicate Violence against Women, which defines discriminatory media content as symbolic violence. Diario Digital Femenino and LatFem, the online news outlets at the center of this study, are part of these legacies of feminist critique and media activism as both outlets have embraced a gender perspective in reporting and supported, often openly, feminist politics in their coverage of social issues in Argentina.

Despite the feminists’ apparent success, their influence seems still limited to alternative media and media activism. Even when mainstream outlets adopt gender perspectives, they become siloed in supplements, such as Clarín Mujer and Las/12 produced by Argentine conglomerates Grupo Clarín and Página 12, respectively (Amado, 2017). Furthermore, measuring the broader impact of these policies is complicated because data about the journalism industry in Argentina are scarce and inconsistent. Amado (2012, 2016, 2017) indicates that, apart from testimonials and a few case studies, there are no systematic studies or census data describing the journalism industry in Argentina. One of the best demographic estimates comes from the global study Worlds of Journalism (2016), whose Argentine sample revealed the underrepresentation of women reporters in the industry with only 36.9% of the interviewees identifying as female.

Mitchelstein et al. (2020) presented compelling evidence that Argentinian women journalists are marginalized in journalism, particularly in the most prestigious news beats, such as politics and opinion. Rovetto (2013) also found problematic dynamics in her qualitative study about gender inequity perceptions in Argentine news media, arguing that a “masculine environment” dominates newsrooms curtailing the application of gender perspectives to reporting (p.60). Taken together, the available studies suggest that mainstream news media in Argentina have been systematically marginalizing women and feminists’ voices and pushing them into the realm of alternative digital media.

With the advent of Ni Una Menos—Not One Woman Less—a movement sparked by feminist journalists that advocates against machista violence, feminist politics have gained traction in Argentina and become a space where partisan polarization can potentially be subverted (Luengo, 2018; Osborn, 2019). This calls for examinations of feminisms’ influence on all institutions, including journalism. This study, therefore, sets out to explore how feminist online news outlets deploy FSE in their journalism practice. I specifically examine the coverage of two online feminist news sites operating in Argentina, LatFem and Diario Digital Femenino (DDF), to identify how feminism shapes news content.

Methods

A qualitative textual analysis (Brennen, 2017) of two online Argentine feminist news outlets, LatFem and DDF, is particularly useful to determine how feminist standpoint shapes these outlets’ journalism. As Acosta-Alzuru and Kreshel argue, textual analysis examines “the latent content of texts through a study of their signification. The object of a textual analysis is not the meanings of the texts, but rather the construction of those meanings through the text” (Acosta-Alzuru and Kreshel, 2002: 146–147). This method, then, allows for the identification of the epistemologies that inform the knowledge claims embedded in news coverage.

LatFem and DDF were founded in 2017 and 2014. Although data about the sites’ reach and audience are not publicly available, it has been reported that they are well-known in Argentina for their use of feminist and gender perspectives (Rueda et al., 2018). In its mission statement, LatFem states that it does journalism using a feminist and intersectional lens and that it is part of the feminist collective Ni Una Menos, which advocates against machista violence. DDF, on the other hand, does not explicitly declare its alliance with any feminist organization. Instead, it identifies itself as the only online outlet in Argentina exclusively dedicated to the production of news about issues related to gender. Some of the journalists and editors employed in these newsrooms work or have worked for mainstream news organizations.

The data analyzed includes the outlets’ mission statements, news articles, and journalistic resources, such as cheat sheets, decalogues, reports, books, and workshops. To collect the news articles, I visited both outlets’ websites every day from September 3 to 15 October 2020, and downloaded the articles featured in their homepages. Opinion articles were excluded from this portion of the data corpus to focus on the news narratives. LatFem typically features 10 to 12 stories in their homepage, while DDF showcases around 20. These homepages, however, were not updated daily, featuring some of the same stories for several days at a time. A total of 66 news articles were collected—29 from LatFem and 37 from DDF. This selection process and its timeframe points to the exploratory nature of this study as well as to its limitations. While the news stories collected from the homepages of LatFem and DDF can provide a snapshot of the sites’ editorial choices, they are not meant to provide a comprehensive, representative, or generalizable depiction of feminist journalism in Argentina.

As previously mentioned, I also collected journalistic resources produced by LatFem and DDF. Considering that feminist journalism has shown commitments to pedagogical practices (Hasan and Gil, 2014), I found it relevant to examine the educational materials promoted by these outlets. To collect these resources, I visited the websites’ tabs dedicated to this content, namely LatFem’s “LatFem Lab” and “Productos,” and DDF’s “Biblioteca Virtual.” A total of 48 resources—12 from LatFem and 36 from DDF—were collected. I analyzed these news articles and resources until I reached data saturation (Fusch and Ness, 2015).

These data were coded using the constant-comparative method (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), which provides specific guidelines to the analysis of qualitative data. First, open coding was used to identify patterns of meaning in the data (Strauss, 1987). The collected materials were read iteratively for comparison and pattern recognition (Charmaz, 2014). The emergent codes, then, informed the next round of axial coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1997) to examine the context that gave rise to certain themes, and the strategies and purposes that motivated their emergence. I engaged in both these coding strategies until category saturation was reached (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

Findings

LatFem and Diario Digital Femenino incorporate FSE to their news reporting as they center the voices of women and minoritized communities as well as shed light on how social issues impact the lives of women and minoritized communities disproportionately. Furthermore, many articles in these outlets include meta-analyses, where the reporter and/or her sources openly interrogate traditional journalism norms and practices, including objectivity or the reproduction of heterosexist narratives. With different approaches, both sites call for an end to intersectional discrimination and usually connect women’s liberation to the strengthening of Argentine democracy. This discourse fits into transnational feminist critiques in Latin America that have focused on how gender discrimination hinders women’s claim to full citizenship and, thus, their participation in the democratic process (Lebon, 2010). Feminist advocacy is, then, at the core of these news outlets’ coverage and pedagogical efforts.

LatFem’s discourse is more openly political than DDF’s. LatFem’s mission statement questions “uncritical journalism, which understands itself as a ‘mirror of the real,’ does not observe diverse realities, nor problematizes inequalities, while reproducing the status quo, [which is] rooted in patriarchal narratives” (LatFem, n.d.). The statement clearly resonates with FSE’s critiques to objectivity and the backgrounding of the politics that fuel journalistic production (Durham, 1998; Steiner, 2012). LatFem’s (n.d.) mission statement continues: “We propose instead a reflection about our discursive practices [to achieve] an inclusive journalism and intellectual work that is respectful … toward diversity, [gives] especial attention to the voices of victims … and relies on categories of feminist theory.” Thus, LatFem journalism professionals make explicit that they are privy to and part of the power dynamics that go into the construction of public discourse and, thus, set out to disrupt the notion that objective detachment engenders better journalism.

Diario Digital Femenino, on the other hand, displays language and positions that seem to be more pedagogical than militant. The website does not post a mission statement but, through its slogan and calls for collaboration, commits itself to applying a gender perspective to reporting and to “generating debates” about “communication and gender in the struggle for women’s, children’s, and teens’ rights” (Diario Digital Femenino, n.d.). The educational role of DDF manifests through the numerous journalistic resources it offers for free. These resources are catered to journalists and editors, addressing the need for a gender perspective in reporting, and demonstrating how it improves journalistic practices and narratives.

I argue that the FSE of the outlets manifests in the authorship, sourcing, framing, and social justice orientation of their published materials. Specifically, three practices make this reporting resonate with the principles of FSE: 1) The voices of women, minoritized communities, and activists are centered and presented as authoritative; 2) reporters show personal identification with the topics or issues they cover, and 3) feminism is explicitly applied to interpret social issues. All the analyzed items showcased at least one of these traits.

Women, minoritized communities, and activists at the center of reporting

In both LatFem and DDF, female reporters and editors oversee news discourse. Among the collected news articles, only two were authored by men in DDF. Furthermore, the sources quoted were overwhelmingly female, with many of them identified as women of color, indigenous, LGBTQ, immigrants, and/or disabled. The makeup of these newsrooms and their sources disrupt pervasive patterns of gender discrimination in Argentine news media (Mitchelstein et al., 2020). Undoing the underrepresentation of women in bylines and as news sources has been a goal of many feminist organizations in Latin America for decades (Hasan, 2012); therefore, this aspect of the hiring and sourcing of LatFem and DDF signal their commitment to a feminist standpoint.

Addressing the gender gap in Argentine media was even, on occasion, the topic of news articles. In an article titled “Not Even Close to Half: We are Missing from the Audiovisual Industry,” Lu Martí nez (2020) of LatFem offered a critique of the gender disparities in Argentine film and television as measured by the Observatory of the Argentine Audiovisual Industry: “The value of work in the audiovisual industry shows a stark trend of discrimination based on sex and gender, which favors men who get higher compensation simply for being men.” Martínez (2020) showed the disparities in funding allocation and ended by amplifying the transfeminist social media campaign #HaganLugar—#MakeSpace in English—which raises awareness about the stereotyping of women and transwomen in media.

In terms of sourcing, LatFem and DDF prioritized women and minoritized communities. The credentials of the sources as professionals and activists were consistently highlighted in the coverage. When the source identifies as feminist, the outlets made it explicit, and usually allowed the source to explain how feminism shapes their work and life. For instance, a DDF article about Jésica Guaiquián, the first woman Mapuche—an indigenous tribe from southwest Argentina—elected to the Santa Rosa Council, emphasized Guaiquián’s background as a lawyer specialized in indigenous human rights and her involvement in the national feminist and indigenous movements. In the article, Guaiquián noted that matriarchal leadership is part of Mapuche tradition and that she intended to demonstrate the benefits of feminist leadership while in office.

Apart from drawing from the expertise of female and non-binary professionals, researchers, and government officials, LatFem and DDF also gave space to activists and community organizers. In Argentina, where the state and the media have had a contentious relationship, mainstream news media have often legitimized the plight of protestors, particularly if dissent represented the economic interests of the middle class (Hoyos, 2019). However, LatFem and DDF quoted grassroots and working-class activists extensively and reported on their grievances with depth, nuance, and sometimes explicit solidarity. For example, in a story about Guernica, a piece of land near Buenos Aires illegally occupied by 2500 families impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, LatFem utilized community organizers as the main guides for the narrative.

“We knew how to organize ourselves and build a community,” said with pride Diana Román from La Lucha. “We are not criminals nor usurpers. We are here because of necessity. We are partners and families that struggle every day. We ask the government to give us hope. We want to become a good neighborhood” (Alcaraz, 2020a).

Alcaraz’s article delved into the housing and unemployment crises that the pandemic had worsened in Argentina, and how they disproportionally impacted women and catalyzed illegal land occupations. Furthermore, she reported on government inaction and abuses by the state police, including the seizure of the community’s food and clean water. The piece closed with a statement that the community assembly of Guernica sent to the Secretary of Women, Genders, and Diversity Elizabeth Gómez Alcorta:

“Behind land occupations … there is hunger, abandonment, poverty, and violence, but there is also the strength to seek for alternatives. Therefore, we defend the access to land to live, produce, and raise [children]. These rights cannot be equated to the right to private property” (Alcaraz, 2020a).

LatFem’s and DDF’s selection and treatment of sources signal a departure from traditional practices within journalism, namely the underrepresentation of women as reporters, editors, and sources, the antagonistic or reductionist approach to social movements, and the personal detachment from issues and sources. By doing so, LatFem and DDF display features of strong reflexivity (Steiner, 2018). As the voices of the marginalized guide news discourse in LatFem and DDF, the experiences and knowledge of the oppressed are imbued with an authority that is often given only to the powerful in mainstream journalism.

Shared subjectivities: Doing away with objective detachment

While the coverage in LatFem and DDF is based on verified facts linked to reliable sources, these facts are rarely separated from value-driven interpretation. LatFem and DDF journalists often included normative assessments to their reports about policies, social statistics, crime, etc. that are explicitly informed by feminist epistemologies and politics.

For example, a news article about four femicides in the Jujuy province openly indicated that “The common denominator in the four cases is the state’s inaction, the dismissive attitudes toward protocols and due process … We clearly see that the gender perspective is not applied” (Alcaraz, 2020b). In the article, members of feminist NGOs indicate that the local government fails to consult them to design, execute or monitor their policies, which leads to the mishandling of instances of machista violence. In other articles, LatFem reporters unequivocally advocated for goals that the national feminist movement in Argentina prioritizes, such as abortion rights for all gestating bodies (i.e., Bellucci, 2020).

The identification with the feminist movement also manifests itself through the consistent use of the first-person plural point of view. For example, in a news article about the 2021 national budget, María Eliosoff Ferrero (2020) of LatFem opened the lead by saying: “If we want to change everything, public budgets are the first step to create sustainable egalitarian policies.” Eliosoff Ferrero (2020) continued: “Public policies are not gender neutral. Those that pretend to be and fail to incorporate intersectional perspectives only perpetuate and deepen inequality, as many feminists have taught us.” In the following paragraphs, the reporter offered an analysis that shows how the budget succeeds and fails to incorporate intersectional understandings of social vulnerability to resource allocation. The piece ends by encouraging readers to “stay vigilant” regarding the implementation of the proposed policies.

When articles addressed the grievances and efforts of communities, LatFem reporters often included themselves in the coverage as part of a collective “we.” This choice highlights the identification of the writers with the marginalized identities at the core of their coverage and gives a sense of shared suffering and responsibility. As most of these reporters are women who highlight how social issues are structured by gender and sexuality, it makes sense for the outlet to use language that renders the involvement and oppression of its own staff visible. Additionally, as noted above, LatFem openly identifies as part of Ni Una Menos which has explicitly embraced transnational and intersectional feminist politics (Luengo, 2018). The connection to Ni Una Menos, then, situates the journalistic work of LatFem as part of the movement’s electronic repertoire of contention (Rolfe, 2005).

To a lesser extent, Diario Digital Femenino also employs the collective “we” in its articles. In Lenny Cáceres’ (2020) interview with feminist writer Esther Pineda about “punitive feminism”—a term coined by adversaries to the feminist movement who claim that feminism only seeks to punish and incarcerate men—he opened the article with his own questions: “Should we give up asking for justice? Ending violence against women is what took us to the streets… should we stop just for fear of being called ‘punitive’?” By portraying his concern as one that encompasses the goals of feminist activism, Cáceres suggested his identification with or his alliance to the feminist movement in Argentina.

Many of DDF’s journalistic resources also articulate its commitment to a gender perspective and social justice. Their tone, however, is more pedagogical than militant. For instance, DDF published a decalogue for the appropriate coverage of chineo, a criminal practice in Argentina by which creole men—that is, land-owning non-indigenous men—molest and rape indigenous girls as young as 7 years old. The practice is systematic and dates to the Spaniard colonial era (Contreras, 2020). To introduce the decalogue, DDF wrote: “The journalistic treatment of chineo and other types of violence must respect the restrictions reflected in the Declaration of Human Rights to avoid the reproduction of hate speech and discrimination.” The decalogue instructs journalists to, among other things, “treat indigenous communities as nations, not minorities or groups,” understand chineo not as a “cultural practice, but a racist and machista hate crime,” and “expose the role of the State in the mistreatment of victims” ((Movimiento de Mujeres, 2020). The decalogue, then, does away with the idea that chineo—and by extension any other kind of racist and sexist violence—can be covered impartially and leaves no room for the validation of opposing perspectives as the norms of objectivity and balance would demand.

These shared subjectivities and advocacy approaches to stories demonstrate the presence of FSE in LatFem and DDF. As the outlets acknowledged the social positioning of their reporters oppressed and agents of feminist movements, they offered feminist interpretations of the news. Reporters did not shy away from editorializing and explicitly condemning the powerful for upholding, by action or omission, discriminatory systems, policies, and practices. A journalism guided by a feminist standpoint epistemology is, then, engaged with the public’s struggles for justice and liberation, especially the efforts of minoritized communities whose histories are often erased or distorted in mainstream media. Furthermore, their reporting of these collective struggles is part of the political articulation of resistance and solidarity, particularly in the case of LatFem. The reporting is not just about accurately conveying facts; it is about legitimizing the lived experiences of the oppressed and their rights claims.

Feminist standpoint as a normative framework

The influence of FSE on LatFem and DDF manifests in observable journalistic practices, namely authorship, sourcing, the centering of marginalized points of view, the emphasis on intersectional and transnational readings of social issues, and the deployment of pedagogical and normative critiques. Reporters and editors in these outlets depart from traditional notions of objectivity and embrace features of strong reflexivity as theorized by Steiner (2012) and Durham (1998), which leads them to express and reflect on their own positionalities as well as to seek engagement instead of detachment from the issues and peoples they cover.

Apart from guiding professional practices, FSE informed the normative assessments, particularly in pedagogical materials. One of the most publicized journalistic resources of LatFem is LatFem Lab, a free online workshop about feminist journalism for Latin American reporters. The program’s premise is that the incorporation of feminist perspective into reporting requires formal training and education. Furthermore, it requires a commitment to feminist ethics and political goals:

We narrate the structural inequities of our societies so that they cease to exist one day. Feminist journalism does not victimize people. We build stories that highlight the strength of the protagonists, instead of rendering them weak. We do not expose cruel images, nor do we pry on the private lives of victims. These are strategies of patriarchal journalism, avid for money and sensationalism (Latfem, 2020).

Diario Digital Femenino took a collaborative approach to journalistic resources, sharing materials developed by other feminist outlets, NGOs, and government institutions. For instance, DDF promoted a guide titled Gender Perspectives and Diversity by the Argentine Comisión Técnica y Transversal de Géneros y Diversidad, which defines how gender perspectives can inform the work of public servants, including journalists. Diario Digital Femenino introduced the resource as follows:

When we talk about a gender perspective, we talk about recognizing and pondering … the layered structural inequalities that shape the socialization of children and teens and family life in a way that does not normalize or reproduce them. Instead, we seek to revise, question, and reverse [these inequalities] (Guía sobre perspectiva de géneros, 2020).

Providing these resources demonstrates a commitment to feminist pedagogical practice, which fits in the history of the digital feminist journalism networks in Latin America (Hasan and Gil, 2014). Additionally, as pedagogical content coexists with news in these digital outlets, LatFem and DDF demonstrate an attempt to formally integrate FSEs into journalism professional practice. In doing so, these outlets took issue with objectivity, explaining how this value has normalized a patriarchal view of society that disparages otherized identities and women’s resistance.

Intersectionality—and FSE more broadly—also informed the news articles by DDF and LatFem. In the case of DDF, FSE functioned as framework that informed source selection, lines of questioning, and interpretations of initiatives and social issues. For example, in her article about chineo, María Eugenia Contreras of DDF exposed the intersectional oppression that indigenous girls and women endure. “Some factors involved are racial, ethnic, and class discrimination, the domination of a people over another, poverty, machismo, language and educational discrimination, which compromises [indigenous women’s] knowledge of their rights” (Contreras, 2020). As she used intersectionality as a conceptual and normative framework, Contreras could explain the colonial roots of the practice, and how indigenous girls embody histories of racism and misogyny. Additionally, Contreras showed how chineo had become systematic and placed the onus on police, prosecutors, judges, and other government officials: “[They] must educate themselves because, otherwise, violence through cat calls, popular sayings and folklore become normalized.”

Diario Digital Femenino often engaged feminisms in a dispassionate tone, presenting them as appropriate guides for reasoning and action. For example, Ximena Casas (2020) of DDF, in her interview with Mariela Mociulsky, CEO of the consulting firm Trendsity, asked about the “multilayered” nature of the widening digital divide in Argentina. Mociulsky said that “The pandemic has affected everyone but the most vulnerable are those at particular intersections of low income, women, and rural areas.” Another DDF article discussed the contributions of feminist pedagogy during the pandemic. The article closed with a quote from Bárbara Burwood of the collective Maestras Feministas who stated: “Feminisms signify a transformative potential that disrupts practices and relations of oppression, invoking egalitarian interactions that can democratize discourse, and vindicate diverse embodiments and experiences” (Demirdjian, 2020).

In the case of LatFem, FSE not only provided an epistemological framework for news-making but a launching pad for political advocacy. Reporting on a regional convention about the decriminalization of abortion, Ana María Abruña Reyes (2020) stated in the lead: “The conservative fundamentalist anti-rights agenda is the main obstacle that the right to abortion faces in each of the countries represented in the convention.” Abruña Reyes immediately framed abortion as a human right and identifies conservatives as the oppressive enemies for the cause. This—along with the statements by activists quoted in the article—resonates with the narratives that feminist movements in Argentina and Latin America have crafted to detangle reproductive rights from religion and morality (Bellucci, 2014). A feminist reading of abortion, then, enabled Abruña Reyes to present pro-abortion activists as reasonable and abortion legalization as a desirable goal. The article ended with Abruña Reyes calling her readers to mobilize alongside Ni Una Menos and other organizations to legalize abortion in Argentina.

LatFem and DDF reproduced feminist epistemologies, ethics, and politics throughout their coverage and pedagogical work. The outlets, however, seem to deploy FSE with distinct goals in mind. Diario Digital Femenino uses it as a framework to inform journalistic practices and narratives that critique patriarchal oppression. LatFem, on the other hand, extends DDF’s approach to FSE to legitimize feminist political advocacy and the promotion of collective action. For LatFem, then, the impact of FSE spills out of the newsroom—its epistemologies and practices—and into the struggles on the streets.

Discussion

The history of Argentine mainstream journalism, particularly its contentious relationship to the state, negates the full embrace of objectivity as a professional norm (Liotti, 2014; Waisbord, 2000). Despite this being the case, objectivity is still summoned to grant credence to journalists and their work. Objectivity, then, is often described by Latin American reporters and scholars as a myth. Renowned Colombian journalist and author Javier Darío Restrepo argued that “all the resources that serve objectivity do not create, in fact, objectivity but an illusion of it because it is possible to fabricate impartiality, manage sourcing, manipulate figures and percentages, and turn all of these tactics into alibis” (as cited in Brunetti, 2017: 75). For Restrepo, the illusion of objectivity shields reporters from questioning their own political motivations and how they shape their reporting. By embracing feminist standpoint epistemologies and, thus, practicing strong reflexivity, the feminist news outlets studied here find alternatives to practice and defend the legitimacy of their journalism.

Through their mission statements, journalistic resources, and news coverage, LatFem and Diario Digital Femenino problematized objectivity, arguing that it renders journalists silent or, at least, uncritical about injustices that compromise the quality of life and rights of women and minoritized communities. For these feminist journalists, mainstream news coverage often reproduced patriarchal understandings about women’s issues and, thus, enacted symbolic violence on women in the guise of professional detachment and neutrality. Furthermore, these feminist news professionals noted that this uncritical objectivity afforded validation only to certain voices and approaches to reporting. Consequently, they pledge a professional commitment to feminism to correct—or at least, call out—social wrongs.

This positionality resonates with standpoint theory, which argues that feminist epistemologies provide more insightful readings of social inequities as women’s lived experiences reflect power dynamics in capitalist patriarchal societies (Hartsock, 1983). As LatFem and DDF brought the voices of women and minoritized communities to the center, were explicit about their political and ethical commitments, and deployed feminist theories to frame and interpret the news, they committed to a reflexive and social justice-oriented form of journalism, which understands engagement and advocacy as key parts of professional practice, not threats to it. By leveraging the insights and knowledge-construction methods of FSE, then, these feminist outlets made news-making openly political, exploring journalism’s role in the symbolic and material vindication of the marginalized.

These outlets used FSE quite differently, though. Much of the disparity could be explained by the fact that LatFem is part of the Ni Una Menos collective, a movement that advocates against machista violence and femicide in Argentina. Therefore, LatFem’s journalism is part of the repertoires of resistance of a specific social movement, making advocacy and collective action a goal that informs all journalistic practices and narratives. DDF, on the other hand, seems to have a professional-oriented motivation when it deploys FSE. That is, DDF strives to establish feminist standpoint and ethics as legitimate frameworks for professional news-making. In other words, DDF sees FSE – or the “gender perspective” to use its own terminology—as a tool to improve journalism whereas LatFem uses it to make its journalism better and to render journalism useful for feminist advocacy.

Conclusion

Journalistic objectivity has for long attempted to keep “the personal” out of the news and the criteria for news-making. Although logically misguided and fiercely contested, the norm has shaped definitions of professionalism and set parameters for credibility in journalism to various degrees across national contexts. Even in the Global South, where political and business interests have shaped news content in subtle and overt ways, objectivity remains a tool for journalists to establish authority. Feminist journalism, however, relies on the feminist motto “the personal is political” and requires reporters and editors to examine their own positionalities to build credibility. As observed in this exploratory study, the use of feminist standpoint epistemologies demands a reconsideration of news-making practices and the role of the personal-as-political in the production of high quality and ethical journalism.

This study opens the path to questions about the impact of feminist politics on journalism beyond Argentina. Newsroom ethnographies are needed to further examine norms, values, routines, and role perceptions of journalists who ascribe to the gender and feminist perspective. These studies should connect the use of these epistemologies to the professionalization of advocacy journalism, which deploys the news as a tool for social change (Thomas, 2018; Waisbord, 2008). As these variations of journalism epistemology are investigated in Global South contexts, where political advocacy is seldom shunned, we would be able to map traditional and emerging politics of journalism and how they influence interpretive frameworks in various geopolitical locations (McNair, 2000). As empirical research on advocacy journalism become complemented by audience studies, scholars could elucidate if or how these politics contribute to the amplification of partisan rifts and echo chambers as some concerned authors have suggested (Baum, 2011; Levendunsky, 2013). This line of research enables, then, serious assessments of the potentialities and pitfalls of standpoint epistemologies—not just feminist ones—which could lead to creative strategies that maximize their emancipatory potential and restore journalism’s credibility.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Ayleen Cabas-Mijares

Author biography

Dr Ayleen Cabas-Mijares is an assistant professor of journalism and media studies at Marquette University. She graduated from the Missouri School of Journalism with a PhD in Journalism and a graduate minor in Women’s and Gender Studies. Dr Cabas-Mijares is a critical/cultural media scholar whose research agenda is geared toward the critical examination of the role of media and journalism in social change. Her research focuses on the Latin American region and Latinx diaspora. Dr Cabas-Mijares, then, has conducted studies on media activism by multiple social movements, such as the indigenous environmental movement in Honduras, the feminist movement in Argentina, and the Undocuqueer Movement in the United States.

References

Abruña Reyes

(2020) Hacia La Despenalización, El Acceso Y La Libre Decisión: La Discusión Sobre El Derecho Al Aborto En El Caribe. Buenos Aires, Argentina: LatFem. Available at: https://latfem.org/hacia-la-despenalizacion-el-acceso-y-la-libre-decision-la-discusion-sobre-el-derecho-al-aborto-en-el-caribe/ (accessed September 25).

Acosta-Alzuru

Kreshel

(2002) ‘I’m an American Girl . . . Whatever that Means:’ Girls Consuming Pleasant Company’s American Girl Identity. Journal of Communication 52(1): 139–161.

Alcaraz

(2020a) En Jujuy Hay Un Patrón De Impunidad E Inacción Ante Los Femicidios. Buenos Aires, Argentina: LatFem. Available at: https://latfem.org/en-jujuy-hay-un-patron-de-impunidad-e-inaccion-ante-los-femicidios/ (accessed October 3).

Alcaraz

(2020b) No Bombardeen Guernica. Buenos Aires, Argentina: LatFem. Available at: https://latfem.org/no-bombardeen-guernica/ (accessed September 22).

Amado

(2012) Periodismo argentino: en busca de datos sobre la profesión. Austral Comunicación 1(2): 113–135.

Amado

(2016) Country Report: Journalists in Argentina. Argentina: Report ,Worlds of JournalismEpub. October. https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/29696/1/Adriana_Amado_Country_report_Argentina.pdf

Amado

(2017) Female journalists from journalism studies: professional profiles of women in media. Cuestiones de género: de la igualdad y la diferencia 12: 325–346.

Baum

(2011) Red state, blue state, flu state: media self-selection and partisan gaps in swine flu vaccinations. Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law 36(6): 1021–1059.

Bellucci

(2014) Historia de una Desobediencia Aborto y Feminismo. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Capital Intelectual.

10.

Bellucci

(2020) Cuerpos Gestantes’ y Derecho al Aborto de Varones Trans: Nuevos Nudos Temáticos Feministas y Disidencias Sexuales. Buenos Aires, Argentina: LatFem. Available at: https://latfem.org/menos-prescriptivismo-mas-articulacion/ (accessed September 27).

11.

Brennen

(2017) Qualitative Research Methods for Media Studies. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

12.

Brunetti

(2017) Independencia, imparcialidad y objetividad en la prensa regional (1900–1926). Improntas de la Historia y la Comunicación 4: 1–29.

13.

Cáceres

(2020) Hablemos de ‘feminismo punitivista. Diario Digital Femenino. Available at: https://diariofemenino.com.ar/hablemos-de-feminismo-punitivista/ (accessed October 1).

14.

Califano

(2009) Comunicación se escribe con K, la radiodifusión bajo el gobierno de Néstor Kirchner. In: Mastinri

(ed) Mucho Ruido, Pocas Leyes. Buenos Aires, Argentina: La Crujía Ediciones, 341–374.

15.

Casas

(2020) Brecha Digital y Las Nuevas Desigualdades. Santa Rosa, Argentina: Diario Digital Femenino. Available at: https://diariofemenino.com.ar/brecha-digital-y-las-nuevas-desigualdades/ (accessed October 4).

16.

Chaher

(2010) El camino hacia la paridad en los medios. In: Chaher

Santoro

(eds) Las Palabras Tienen Sexo II. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Artemisa, 124–142.

17.

Charmaz

(2014) Constructing Grounded Theory. London, UK: Sage.

18.

Contreras

(2020) El Chineo, un Abuso de Poder Disfrazado de Práctica Ancestral. Santa Rosa, Argentina: Diario Digital Femenino. Available at: https://diariofemenino.com.ar/el-chineo-un-abuso-de-poder/(accessed October 13).

19.

Demirdjian

(2020) Maestras y Académicas Reflexionaron Sobre los Desafíos de Pensar una Pedagogía en Clave Feminista. Santa Rosa, Argentina: Diario Digital Femenino. Available at: https://diariofemenino.com.ar/maestras-y-academicas/ (accessed October 8).

20.

Durham

(1998) On the Relevance of standpoint epistemology to the practice of journalism: the case for ‘strong objectivity. Communication Theory 8(2): 117–140.

21.

Eliosoff Ferrero

(2020) Presupuesto 2021: Sale Con ISO Feminista. Buenos Aires, Argentina: LatFem. Available at: https://latfem.org/presupuesto-2021-sale-con-iso-feminista/ (accessed September 19).

22.

Fusch

Ness

(2015) Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report 20(9): 1408–1416.

23.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. London, UK: Aldine Transaction.

24.

Guía sobre perspectiva de géneros y diversidad (i) SENAF. Diario Digital Femenino. (2020). Available at https://diariofemenino.com.ar/df/guia-sobre-perspectiva-de-generos-y-diversidad-i-senaf/

25.

Hackett

(1984) Decline of a paradigm? Bias and objectivity in news media studies. Critical Studies in Media Communication 1(3): 229–259.

26.

Hanitzsch

(2009) Comparative journalism studies. In: Wahl-Jorgensen

Hanitzsch

(eds) The Handbook of Journalism Studies. New York, NY: Routledge, 413–427.

27.

Hanitzsch

Hanusch

Mellado

, et al. (2011) Mapping Journalism Cultures across Nations: A Comparative Study of 18 Countries. Journalism Studies 12(3): 273–293.

28.

Haraway

(1988) Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14(3): 575–599.

29.

Harding

(1993) Rethinking standpoint epistemology: what is ‘strong objectivity?. In: Alcoff

Potter

(eds) Feminist Epistemologies. New York, NY: Routledge, 28–82.

30.

Harding

(ed) (2004) The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies. New York, NY: Routledge.

31.

Hartsock

(1983) The feminist standpoint: developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In: Harding

Hintikka

(eds) Discovering reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Dondrecht, The Netherlands: Reide/Kluwer, 283–310.

32.

Hasan

(2012) Periodismo feminista en la web y estrategias en el uso de las TICs: construcción de agenda y producciones contradiscursivas. In: Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting for the Jornadas Internacionales de Problemas Latinoamericanos Movimientos Sociales, Estados y Partidos Políticos en América Latina: (re)configuraciones Institucionales, Experiencias de Organización y Resistencia, Mendoza, Argentina, November 28–30.

33.

Hasan

Gil

(2014) Estrategias del periodismo feminista: prácticas y política en la reconfiguración del espacio comunicacional. Perspectivas de la Comunicación 7(2): 42–54.

34.

Hoyos

DFP

(2019) Los estudios sobre la protesta social: el caso argentino. Reflexión Política 21(42): 145–161.

35.

Latfem

Lab. LATFEM Lab.

(2020). Available at: https://lab.latfem.org/#sobre-latfem-lab (accessed September 8).

36.

Lebon

(2010) Women building plural democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean. In: Maier

Lebon

(eds) Women’s Activism in Latin America and the Caribbean. London, UK: Rutgers University Press, 3–25.

37.

Levendusky

(2013) How Partisan Media Polarize America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

38.

Liotti

(2014) The complex relationship between the media and the political system in Argentina: From co-option to polarization. In: Alejandro Guerrero

Márquez-Ramírez

(eds) Media Systems And Communication Policies in Latin America. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 100–121.

39.

Luengo

(2018) Gender violence: the media, civil society, and the struggle for human rights in Argentina. Media, Culture & Society 40(3): 397–414.

40.

Martínez

(2020) Ni cerca de la Mitad: Faltamos en la Industria Audiovisual. Buenos Aires, Argentina: LatFem. Available at: https://latfem.org/ni-cerca-de-la-mitad-faltamos-en-la-industria-audiovisual/ (accessed September 14).

41.

McNair

(2000) Journalism and Democracy: An Evaluation of the Political Public Sphere. London, UK: Routledge.

42.

Mellado

Moreira

Lagos

, et al. (2012) Comparing journalism cultures in latin america: the case of chile, Brazil and Mexico. International Communication Gazette 74(1): 60–77.

43.

Mitchelstein

Boczkowski

Andelsman

, et al. (2020) Whose voices are heard? The byline gender gap on Argentine news sites. Journalism 21(3): 307–326.

44.

Movimiento de Mujeres Indígenas por el buen vivir (2020) Buenas Prácticas periodísticas para Informar sobre Chineo y Todo Tipo de violencias hacia mujeres indígenas. Santa Rosa, Argentina: Diario Digital Femenino. Available at https://diariofemenino.com.ar/df/buenas-practicas-periodisticas/ (accessed September 26).

45.

Muñoz-Torres

(2012) Truth and objectivity in journalism: anatomy of an endless misunderstanding. Journalism Studies 13(4): 566–582.

46.

Osborn

(2019) Feminism Is Uniting Argentina’s Left and Right. Washington, D.C: Foreign Policy. Available at: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/23/argentina-elections-left-and-right-empower-women-address-economic-problems/ (accessed October 23).

47.

Peters

Broersma

(2013) Rethinking Journalism: Trust and Participation in a Transformed News Landscape. New York, NY: Routledge.

48.

Raeijmaekers

Maeseele

(2017) In objectivity we trust? Pluralism, consensus, and ideology in journalism studies. Journalism 18(6): 647–663.

49.

Rolfe

(2005) Building an electronic repertoire of contention. Social Movement Studies 4(1): 65–74.

50.

Rosen

(1993) Beyond Objectivity. Nieman Reports 47(4): 48–53.

51.

Rovetto

(2013) Percepciones sobre desigualdades de género en el trabajo periodístico. Global Media Journal México 10(20): 54–73.

52.

Rueda

Farías

Mignoli

(2018) Abortamos la Objetividad Periodística. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Periodistas Argentinas en Red. Available at: https://redparblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/12/abortamos-la-objetividad-periodistica/ (accessed April 4).

53.

Smith

(1990) The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

54.

Steiner

(2012) Failed theories: explaining gender difference in journalism. Review of Communication 12(3): 201–223.

55.

Steiner

(2018) Solving journalism’s post-truth crisis with feminist standpoint epistemology. Journalism Studies 19(13): 1854–1865.

56.

Strauss

(1987) Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. London, UK: Cambridge University Press.

57.

Strauss

Corbin

(eds), (1997). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Grounded theory in practice

58.

Thomas

(2018) Advocacy journalism. In: Vos

(ed), Journalism. Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton, 391–413.

59.

Tuchman

(1972) Objectivity as strategic ritual: an examination of newsmen’s notions of objectivity. American Journal of Sociology 77(4): 660–679. DOI: 10.1086/225193.

60.

Waisbord

(2000) Watchdog Journalism in South America: News, Accountability, and Democracy. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

61.

Waisbord

(2008) Advocacy journalism in a global context. In: Wahl-Jorgensen

Hanitzsch

(eds) The Handbook of Journalism Studies. New York, NY: Routledge, 371–385.