Where do you start when writing a review of a brutally honest, soul-searching book written by a young transgender journalist who was fired from his mainstream reporting job for questioning the usefulness of the journalistic concept of “objectivity” on a personal blog? Perhaps, as the author suggests, one should start with radical transparency. Like the author, I belong to the LGBTQIA community, like the author I am white, and thus benefit from the invisible privileges accorded whites in our society due to systemic racism. Yet, at the same time, I know what it is to be marginalized as a queer woman. I understand that marriage is more than a religious institution, as some try to claim today to exclude the LGBTQIA from the institution in the name of religious freedom. I know this because marriage affects access to health insurance, tax status, and even ability to see a hospitalized life partner. These are all things that a straight person takes for granted. So, when the author questions “objectivity” and points to how claims of objectivity historically and currently have preserved the status quo, I nod my head in agreement. But I hope that those who might not agree will at least listen to his arguments with an open mind. As the author does not claim the mantle of absolute certainty, but rather advocates for an open and honest debate about how we can restore American trust in news coverage.

Historically, as the author details, “objectivity” has been used by news outlets to define what is news. It has been used to exclude certain stories as deviant, such as Ida B. Wells exposé that revealed how lynching had become an epidemic in this country and how mainstream newspapers never questioned the veracity of the rape allegations that were used to justify the killing of black men. While wells crisscrossed the country gathering statistics on lynching, mainstream newspapers such as the New York Times launched an attack on her, calling her a “slanderous, nasty-minded mulattress.” But it was her “deviant” coverage that produced the most thorough picture of lynching in her time. It was stories such as hers that exposed the lie behind the status quo and transformed it.

But as the author also shows, one need not look to the nineteenth century to find cases where objectivity was used as a weapon to maintain the status quo and ensure certain groups remain in the margins. For example, if a woman reporter writes a story about abortion, her objectivity is called into question, because she has too much personal stake in the issue, as happened to Linda Greenhouse, a journalist at the time of the story affiliated with the New York Times. But the same question is never asked of male journalists who attend private dinners with politicians or are drinking buddies with Wall Street types? In short, objectivity and the concept of “conflict of interest” become ways of ensuring certain voices remain underrepresented.

As alternative, the author suggests that journalism should prioritize skepticism and a curiosity about the systems and structures that keep oppression in place, and radical transparency to the public about the values and methodologies that inform an individual reporter’s journalistic practice. This focus does not mean abandoning all tenets of traditional journalistic ethics: verification and fact-checking, editorial independence from political parties and corporations, clarity and transparency, and deep, thorough sourcing. But it does mean, the author argues, recognizing that journalists all write from somewhere and that somewhere is what can ensure diverse voices are represented in the media.

This thought-provoking book about the way forward for journalism in a polarized environment in which white supremacy hides behind outcries over “fake news” deserves a wide readership. Not because it purports to have all the answers, but because it dares to raise fundamental questions about how news is written and what it means when certain stories are deemed not “newsworthy” for marginalized and so-called mainstream communities.

The View from Somewhere changed not only the way I look at the media and my own position within it as a freelance journalist, but the way I teach things like Cognitive Dissonance in my writing courses. I have begun telling students to read it and telling them about pieces of it when they ask questions about unbiased reporting. This is essential reading for anyone who wants to be a writer.