My fundamental disconnect with traditional journalism has always been in the application of objectivity and neutrality. Frankly, I think traditional journalism has set a standard in its interpretation of objectivity and neutrality that is dangerously high and creates a significant risk of failure for journalists and publications alike.
I respect that traditional journalists seek to apply standards of objectivity and neutrality to their investigating and writing, but I believe their attempt denies human nature, both for the writer and for the reader. I think that someone can investigate and report from their perspective (bias) and remain objective so long as they state their bias upfront. I think that passionate, in-depth reporting by journalists who obviously care about their subjects is exactly the kind of journalism modern readers want to see.
In my class last week, our instructor presented a definition of journalism (citizen journalism in this case) that I think cuts to the heart of what I think journalism should be:
“[Citizen Journalists] believe instead that the best journalism: A) is a form of popular writing grounded without compromise in verified fact; B) presents news and public issues with an articulated point of view; b) [sic] achieves fairness to the facts, to sources, and to readers by fully explaining that point of view while also offering views, ideas, and perspectives other than its own.”
--The Largemouth Citizen Journalism Manual, Douglas McGill
Unfortunately, I do not think there are many traditional journalistic publications that can accept or put into practice this kind of journalism. Further, I am unwilling to invest myself, at least at this point, into the kind of effort it would take to create the kind of publications where the cited journalistic standard would be the rule. Hence the reason that the closest I will likely every come to professional journalism is as an investigative writer or a contributor to an established citizen journalism publication.
But who knows for sure. It is hard to predict what the future holds, and opportunities may still present themselves. I am not writing journalism off completely, but I am only willing to do it on my terms.
2 comments:
I would say "spoken like a true journalist," but you have made it very obvious that you would not consider this to be a compliment.
Just for the heck of it I looked up journalism in my dictionary and the definition stated; the writing and editing of news items (I like it).
Simple and straight to the point, it doesn't force anyone into an uncomfortable box, forcing them to conform to someone else’s interpretation of what true journalism is all about.
That being said, if we choose to work for some else we do have to conform to certain rules in order to get paid. I think this is similar to workers everywhere no matter the profession, that believe if they ran their own business they would do thinks differently by stepping outside the box.
What exactly is the box? It is simply the right place to be right now.
What do we call most great ideas? Stepping outside the box (how odd!).
Needless to say I am going to enjoy reading your work in the future as a renowned "journalist", that launched his career by going against the grain of ordinary journalism and doing it his way, stepping outside the box.
You have a gift I have no doubt you’ll use it.
LEX
Thanks for the compliment.
Hopefully, I'll have something worth reading someday.
Post a Comment