Media Literacy: Journalism vs. Commentary

In a world riddled with accusations of “fake news,” selective reporting, and content mills that call anything “journalism” if it gets clicks, I wanted to take a brief moment to talk about media literacy, the difference between journalism and personal commentary, and what journalistic integrity actually means. I ride that line quite often as a commentator, journalist, and author, and the difference in whether something is commentary or journalism doesn't depend on what I call myself, but on the methods and standards I am using at any given moment.

It’s important to me, ethically, that people understand these distinctions because trust is not built through being right all the time—but through being transparent about the role you are playing.

Because My Work Exists in Many Spaces

In addition to documenting local civic life here in Rutherford County, NC—both in this blog and the satire zine It Doesn’t Have to Be This Way—my writing, interviews, and quotes have appeared in nationally and internationally circulated publications such as Patheos Pagan and The Wild Hunt, as well as magazines like Witchology. My work has also been cited as expert opinion in scholarly research, including, for example, Ivy League theses such as Maggie E. Woodlock’s “When Witches Mourn the Dead: Grieving Rituals of Contemporary Witchcraft in New England.”

All of this exists alongside my internationally distributed non-fiction books, which undergo full editorial, legal, and factual review, and because my work is read nationally and internationally, I must operate under professional expectations of accuracy, verification, sourcing, and accountability.

Editors, publishers, and legal teams outside myself routinely review my writing—meaning there is a material difference between the standards applied to my published nonfiction and the more flexible, personal forms of content I create elsewhere such as It Doesn’t Have to Be This Way, this blog, and my YouTube Vlog.

So let’s talk about that.

News Sources

News Sources like Patheos Pagan and The Wild Hunt have editorial oversight. That means there are editors, fact-checking processes, publication guidelines, ethical frameworks, corrections policies, and the expectation of fairness, accuracy, and clarity. These are journalistic entities and when I write for them, I am accountable to their standards.

Magazine Articles

Magazines like Witchology have editorial oversight, require fact-checking and verification of claims, sourcing, documentation, revisions for accuracy, and accountability for mistakes. Not every magazine meets the same standard, but in general professional publications involve professional oversight.

Traditionally Published Books

Traditionally published books have the highest level of oversight. They must be approved by an acquisitions editor, undergo multiple rounds of edits, pass legal review, avoid defamation, adhere to citation and accuracy standards, contain verifiable content, and not use AI-generated material.

These works are held to the most stringent standards because the liability is shared by the author, publisher, and distributor. If something is factually wrong, misleading, or defamatory, the publisher is responsible too.

Self-Published Books

Self-published works have variable oversight. They can be held to rigorous standards—but that depends entirely on the author. In self-publishing or "vanity publishing," the author becomes the editor, fact-checker, legal department, and ethics board. As a result, the quality of self-published works varies wildly, and is largely dependent on the integrity of the author. While some are excellent and deeply researched, others are poorly vetted or and composed entirely of AI-generated text plagiarized from other published works. The key distinction is that oversight comes from that author alone, with no external accountability or review.

Satire

Satire is not meant to be factual—it's meant to reveal truth through exaggeration, and is one of the oldest forms of social critique. Satire takes a truth, magnifies it, twists it, and makes it humorous or absurd. Its purpose is not factual accuracy but moral clarity. It Doesn’t Have to Be This Way, for example, is satire. It's intentionally biased and outlandish, it is not journalism and it's not pretending to be.

Blogs and Vlogs

Blogs and vlogs are, by definition, forms of commentary. Whether written on platforms like Substack, or recorded in places like TikTok or YouTube, they capture a single perspective shaped by that individual creator’s experiences, emotions, and personal interpretation of events. They can include elements of reporting—such as documentation, analysis, or even primary source material—but unless they're verifying facts, citing sources, preserving evidence, offering multiple perspectives, correcting errors, and operating with oversight, they remain commentary. This is not judgement or criticism, but a category distinction. Commentary, and therefore blogs, vlogs, and similar forms of commentary are perfectly legitimate as long as it's not misrepresented as journalism.

So, What’s the Actual Difference?

The key difference between journalism and commentary is that journalism verifies, cites, records, documents, contextualizes, presents evidence, acknowledges limitations, corrects errors, operates within oversight, offers more than one perspective, and focuses on what is verifiably true.

Commentary, on the other hand, interprets, reacts, reflects, expresses opinion, centers a single point of view, may or may not verify information, and focuses on what is felt.

Both have value, but they are not the same.

So...

When a blog that offers one perspective and has no journalistic oversight, presents itself as journalism, you, the reader, should not trust it as news. And when someone who presents themselves as a journalist makes sweeping factual claims about someone by name, without evidence, without verification, without ever reaching out for comment, while ignoring documented facts…it ceases to be journalism.

It fact, it violates basic journalistic standards and enters the territory of potentially defamatory conduct—because those statements are presented as fact, but lack the due diligence real reporting requires.

Why Media Literacy Matters Now More Than Ever

I am a journalist. I've done hundreds of hours of public meeting documentation, public records analysis, and civic reporting, I’ve written academic nonfiction and contributed to news bylines with national reach. But when I vlog, blog, or work on It Doesn't Have To Be This Way? That's not journalism, it's commentary.

And when someone claims to be a journalist while publishing only one viewpoint, ignoring contradictory evidence, selectively framing facts to support personal feelings, failing to verify information, refusing to reach out to primary sources, and presenting commentary as reporting?

They're misleading readers into believing they are consuming news when they are actually consuming opinion, and while there is nothing wrong with opinion, concealing bias while claiming neutrality is a breach of journalistic integrity. Because that’s not “watchdog reporting,” it’s opinion wearing a press badge and people deserve to know the difference.

When someone insists they are a watchdog journalist but consistently produces one-sided coverage, ignores documented facts, and treats marginalized individuals with suspicion instead of fairness—

the public deserves to approach that work with discernment.

Not hostility.

Not dismissal.

Just clarity.

Know what you’re reading, know what the creator claims to be, know the difference between reporting and commentary, and hold people to the standards they say they represent.

A Final Note on Responsible Reporting

When an author asserts a detail about a private citizen as fact—they assume legal responsibility for the accuracy of that statement—and publishing identifiable information alongside unverified accusations can quickly cross the line from opinion into potentially defamatory conduct, the remedies for which may include formal corrections, retractions, cease-and-desist letters, or, when necessary, civil legal action.

This is not hyperbole—it's simply the legal reality of publishing unverified claims as fact, and writers who wish to be regarded as journalists, reporters, or "watchdogs," should be especially diligent in avoiding these pitfalls, because what distinguishes journalism from gossip is not boldness, but verification, fairness, and accountability.

There are many authors in our community, and those who present themselves as journalists or reporters would be wise to review their own work. If you have published pieces naming private community members while presenting unverified claims, personal speculation, or selective interpretation as fact—especially when those claims were made without contacting the person for comment, without reviewing all available documentation, or while omitting contradictory evidence—you should be aware that such behavior carries real consequences.

To be perfectly candid: my publishers have, on more than one occasion, escalated concerns to their legal team when my integrity was misrepresented or publicly attacked, which is such a clear indicator that accuracy matters—and that credibility is earned not by wielding a platform, but by honoring the responsibilities that come with one.