Should they be objective? Independent? Humane? Passionate? Should they care about the topic?
These seem to be raging philosophical questions in journalism.
Ideas are potent. Journalists SHOULD NOT get close to the people they write about. They SHOULD be friends with the people they write about. They SHOULD NOT be subjective. They CAN be subjective. They should be humane...ohhh, but not too humane.
I don't get it. And I disagree with the views of most journalists. I disagree with it all, really.
Why is it that journalists concur that independence from a subject is what creates decent journalism?
For, in their opinions, how could a truly great journalist ever refrain from a shoddy viewpoint of something if they are connected, interwined with the "subject"?
I don't feel that way at all. I believe that voices that are emotionally connected explain the TRUE truth better than those that aren't. I agree with the ancient monks that were debunked in the beginning of my readings for claiming that literal truth is at the bottom of the pyramid.
Yes, not being independent may reflect one side more. But the reflection is immense and powerful and moving!
I think that heart is what matters. A woman whose daughter died in a fire can write with greater insight about the fire.
I mean, I do believe that people deserve to hear reality. They do deserve to hear the truth, without bias. They do deserve open minds.
But I'm biased. I'm passionate. I'm connected with the things I write about. I'm subjective. I'm opinionated.
Perhaps, I am not meant to be a journalist. Maybe I should try fiction.
No comments:
Post a Comment