![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I've been interested in journalism for quite some time now... my mother wrote articles relating to Rodeo for the AC Press and other publications while I was growing up, so it's an interest which has followed logically from my early exposure to her writing. As the years passed, I started writing things of my own... first stories, then poetry... finally I got into journalism myself in highschool, taking a class on it and working on the school newspaper during my freshman year. That was, I believe, when I was first exposed to the myth of "Real Journalism".
The myth, to put it simply, states that real journalists report just the facts on any issue and nothing more... and that to do otherwise is to reduce oneself to the practice of "yellow journalism"; a broad term covering everything from biased reporting, to reporting opinion which masquerades as fact, all the way to pure sensationalist reporting. In my own experience this mandate of purely factual reporting merged with the concept of scientific objectivity which was also being taught to us in school... taught repeatedly, year after year, in fact. It was always covered in the first or second chapter of every science textbook we used: the scientific method and objectivity. It seemed self-evident to me, as a result, that when writing an article or an essay or other nonfictional prose that dealt with factual matters, one should leave their personal bias out of it.
But that approach, when you think about it, isn't really workable beyond a narrow spectrum of painfully technical writing. Human experience is not objective... it's rich and multi-layered. It involves emotion, even passion. And so does writing about it. If you don't write about your interpretations of the facts, if you don't write about how they make you feel, what they remind you of... if you don't write about what you believe to be true and what you believe to be false and why you believe each of these things, most of all if you don't take the time to let the things you are writing about interest you and affect you, and then SHOW that in your work... then why the hell would anyone else be interested in what you have written or affected by it? Why the hell SHOULD anyone else be?
I'd fallen for the myth of pure objectivity in factual writing... my essay on abusive situations is a very good example of me trying to fit in just the facts and not interpret things or add personal bias, despite intimate personal experience with the subject. It was a collection of dry facts, technically accurate but lacking any spark of emotion to catch the interest of a reader. Just the other day, though, I had an experience of doing the opposite... I sat down, did some research on a subject, and when I was done I set aside what I had read and just wrote about my thoughts and feelings on the subject. I didn't quote anyone, I didn't cite any sources. I wrote a purely personal, purely biased collection of conclusions.
And you know what? It felt damned good. And the resulting essay, while not yet complete in its intended scope, is probably some of the best nonfiction writing that I've done in some time.
Maybe this one is too.
The myth, to put it simply, states that real journalists report just the facts on any issue and nothing more... and that to do otherwise is to reduce oneself to the practice of "yellow journalism"; a broad term covering everything from biased reporting, to reporting opinion which masquerades as fact, all the way to pure sensationalist reporting. In my own experience this mandate of purely factual reporting merged with the concept of scientific objectivity which was also being taught to us in school... taught repeatedly, year after year, in fact. It was always covered in the first or second chapter of every science textbook we used: the scientific method and objectivity. It seemed self-evident to me, as a result, that when writing an article or an essay or other nonfictional prose that dealt with factual matters, one should leave their personal bias out of it.
But that approach, when you think about it, isn't really workable beyond a narrow spectrum of painfully technical writing. Human experience is not objective... it's rich and multi-layered. It involves emotion, even passion. And so does writing about it. If you don't write about your interpretations of the facts, if you don't write about how they make you feel, what they remind you of... if you don't write about what you believe to be true and what you believe to be false and why you believe each of these things, most of all if you don't take the time to let the things you are writing about interest you and affect you, and then SHOW that in your work... then why the hell would anyone else be interested in what you have written or affected by it? Why the hell SHOULD anyone else be?
I'd fallen for the myth of pure objectivity in factual writing... my essay on abusive situations is a very good example of me trying to fit in just the facts and not interpret things or add personal bias, despite intimate personal experience with the subject. It was a collection of dry facts, technically accurate but lacking any spark of emotion to catch the interest of a reader. Just the other day, though, I had an experience of doing the opposite... I sat down, did some research on a subject, and when I was done I set aside what I had read and just wrote about my thoughts and feelings on the subject. I didn't quote anyone, I didn't cite any sources. I wrote a purely personal, purely biased collection of conclusions.
And you know what? It felt damned good. And the resulting essay, while not yet complete in its intended scope, is probably some of the best nonfiction writing that I've done in some time.
Maybe this one is too.
