pour vous
because nobody reads this anyways, I am going to use it in whatever fashion I wish with no audience in mind at all. Mostly, I have a feeling that these posts will begin to turn their leaves into an open forum in which my thoughts have no boundaries, no critiques, no fear of mass approval or rejection. an editorial without an editor. complete journalistic freedom.
mostly I have 500 words to write about a bunch of theoretical journalism I have just swallowed. First of all - and I have said it before - I am finding issue with the idea of keeping a detachment to the story at hand. Hypothetically, if I were covering a story about a cat with three legs I imagine I would have no problem keeping myself at a relative distance to the work I was doing, however right now I am in the throes of working on a piece about abortion - a subject I am invested in accurately addressing. Now, as a good reporter I know that I need to be fair and unbiased, which means talking to all the pro-life christian conservatives who are scare me. Fine. But in my final cut, I will be DAMNED if I slant in that direction at all and thus, verifying my subjective position in my identification as 'proudly pro-choice'. so there. Detachment seems impossible to negotiate because I am invested in promoting what I believe to be the right course of institutionalized sexual health. Let people choose what they choose, but let all the options be available to them.
Another thing, if something is corrupt (ex. a politician, business, bureaucratic 'service', ad campaign, public agenda etc.) how are we as reporters expected to detach ourselves from this knowledge in order to produce a story that is fair to both sides? One of the sides is already unfair! What is our responsibility as a humanist or a socialist in this case? Shouldn't these identifiers trump our role as journalists?
My editor recently told me this:
Strive to write your opinion but mask it in the collective conscience, "this what you think and if you don't, this is why you should!" Put not so bluntly, you will argue a point and strive to start a conversation, because as a student, thats all you can do.
Something I am quickly realizing is that, as a student journalist, I have zero credibility. Nuts. Luckily for me, most journalists - even the most respected - don't actually mean shit to the production of media anyways because it is all one great advertisement. A -commercial - enterprise that views news as a perishable commodity. Period. Everyone who argues that the news is important for a democracy is forgetting that the only reason papers are around is because of advertising necessity. Economy reigns, which sucks. -- --- -- case & point: A Wall Street analyst (tough to be you!) put the matter bluntly - ' some reporters don't understand that they work for a company that sells advertising. They're in the advertising business, not in the journalism business. They don't get it. Without the bottom line, they don't have jobs. The people that own the company are the shareholders, not the reporters.'
--- --- --
The dependence on advertising to run the media is so fucked. I mean, it is a fundamental divide - number one) the desire to communicate the truth, to confront and explore local, national and global issues, to provide a dialogue for conflict resolution and number two) the desire to push products FAST. The desire for audience attention and exposure. the necessity of relentless consumption. ----- These two subjects lack fundamental common motives. Advertisements, according to me, distract everyone from what is important, maintain narratives that are impossible to obtain and are a central vein of the economic problems north america is facing at this very moment. It has a stranglehold on the media. It monopolizes it. The system isn't fair, so why are journalists expected to be? How can I keep detached from this? It is impossible, unless you write unconsciously...
--- --- --- ---
--- --- --- ---
My hands feel empty. All I can do is do what McLaughlin tells me, because he is the only one who excites me about what I am doing now. I need to give over communication to everyone else. I need to attend to the other, intensely, concentrate actively and completely. Interest and investigation are all I have at my disposal. What a daunting way to dive into three years.
mostly I have 500 words to write about a bunch of theoretical journalism I have just swallowed. First of all - and I have said it before - I am finding issue with the idea of keeping a detachment to the story at hand. Hypothetically, if I were covering a story about a cat with three legs I imagine I would have no problem keeping myself at a relative distance to the work I was doing, however right now I am in the throes of working on a piece about abortion - a subject I am invested in accurately addressing. Now, as a good reporter I know that I need to be fair and unbiased, which means talking to all the pro-life christian conservatives who are scare me. Fine. But in my final cut, I will be DAMNED if I slant in that direction at all and thus, verifying my subjective position in my identification as 'proudly pro-choice'. so there. Detachment seems impossible to negotiate because I am invested in promoting what I believe to be the right course of institutionalized sexual health. Let people choose what they choose, but let all the options be available to them.
Another thing, if something is corrupt (ex. a politician, business, bureaucratic 'service', ad campaign, public agenda etc.) how are we as reporters expected to detach ourselves from this knowledge in order to produce a story that is fair to both sides? One of the sides is already unfair! What is our responsibility as a humanist or a socialist in this case? Shouldn't these identifiers trump our role as journalists?
My editor recently told me this:
Strive to write your opinion but mask it in the collective conscience, "this what you think and if you don't, this is why you should!" Put not so bluntly, you will argue a point and strive to start a conversation, because as a student, thats all you can do.
Something I am quickly realizing is that, as a student journalist, I have zero credibility. Nuts. Luckily for me, most journalists - even the most respected - don't actually mean shit to the production of media anyways because it is all one great advertisement. A -commercial - enterprise that views news as a perishable commodity. Period. Everyone who argues that the news is important for a democracy is forgetting that the only reason papers are around is because of advertising necessity. Economy reigns, which sucks. -- --- -- case & point: A Wall Street analyst (tough to be you!) put the matter bluntly - ' some reporters don't understand that they work for a company that sells advertising. They're in the advertising business, not in the journalism business. They don't get it. Without the bottom line, they don't have jobs. The people that own the company are the shareholders, not the reporters.'
--- --- --
The dependence on advertising to run the media is so fucked. I mean, it is a fundamental divide - number one) the desire to communicate the truth, to confront and explore local, national and global issues, to provide a dialogue for conflict resolution and number two) the desire to push products FAST. The desire for audience attention and exposure. the necessity of relentless consumption. ----- These two subjects lack fundamental common motives. Advertisements, according to me, distract everyone from what is important, maintain narratives that are impossible to obtain and are a central vein of the economic problems north america is facing at this very moment. It has a stranglehold on the media. It monopolizes it. The system isn't fair, so why are journalists expected to be? How can I keep detached from this? It is impossible, unless you write unconsciously...
--- --- --- ---
--- --- --- ---
My hands feel empty. All I can do is do what McLaughlin tells me, because he is the only one who excites me about what I am doing now. I need to give over communication to everyone else. I need to attend to the other, intensely, concentrate actively and completely. Interest and investigation are all I have at my disposal. What a daunting way to dive into three years.
posted by Loco at
10:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home