As I scrolled through my Facebook feed today, I came across two news stories from The Huffington Post and Fox News. Both stories were about President Trump’s executive order to ban Muslims from entering the country. The fact that major news outlets were reporting on this issue didn’t surprise me. What did surprise me was how different each of the stories was. Fox’s story confided in Trump and endorsed his decision as a “memorandum to defeat ISIS,” while The Huffington Post shamed his decision as “a radical departure from President Barack Obama’s efforts to admit more refugees and improve relationships with Muslims.”

The big issue here is that two news sources published two contradicting views of the same issue and that we the people can find “facts” that confirm our opinions. Facts used to shape our opinions – that was the point of news – but now, opinions are shaping facts, and readers don’t know who or what to believe and do they even care what the facts are?

Amid the Trump administration’s claim of “alternative facts,” we have seen people run to whatever news source makes them feel safe about their opinions. This puts news sources in a powerful position: tell the truth, regardless how it makes the viewers feel, or implement “alternative” news to make the viewers’ opinions feel protected.

Growing up and being a student of journalism, I was taught that everyone can have their own opinions, but facts are facts no matter who they offend or whose opinions they contradict. Facts are objective. Opinions are not. It used to be that simple, or at least I thought. Now, it seems there’s as fine a line as there’s ever been between journalism and editorializing.

Even worse, how should we expect readers to decipher between facts, and facts with a little bit of opinion sprinkled in? That’s the journalist’s job. When a journalist puts his fingers to the keyboard, right then and there he’s making an ethical agreement to the readers to report the facts and leave his opinion out of it.

The Society of Professional Journalists number one code in its code of ethics is for journalists to seek the truth and report it. When I decided to become a journalist, I did so because I saw the courage, power, and purpose of it. Unlike public relations, journalism wasn’t a promotion or a “fluff” piece. It gave a voice to the voiceless.

Courage was the big word for me when I decided to pursue journalism. When the Spotlight team discovered child molestation in the Catholic Church, the reporters didn’t withhold the information from their readers or try to use “alternative” facts to lessen the blow. The team simply sought the truth and reported it. The team simply did their job, unnerved and detached from possible backlash. There are more than 1 billion Catholics in the world today, and each journalist involved in Spotlight put their reputations on the line when their findings were published, but a journalist’s reputation is irrelevant to his duty to report the truth.

A journalist is to authority figures what Congress is to the president – a check and balance, and a middleman between fascism and public unity. Without Congress, the weak are left voiceless, and without journalism, the same occurs. But we live in a time where the people don’t trust Congress or journalists.

Journalism used to be a courageous occupation – one on par with police officers and firefighters. Just as it was it was a firefighter’s duty to extinguish fires, it was a journalist’s duty to extinguish anarchy and uproot tyranny, but while firefighters continue to do their job, journalists have lost the burning fire that is courage within them.

The problem is that people don’t want to be want to be wrong, and news sources are trying to make money. Maybe the truth doesn’t sell as well, or maybe readers don’t care what the truth is, but in a world of “alternative” news, those of us looking for the truth are struggling to find what’s right.