Myths of journalism

"Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism."
- Hunter S. Thompson


I'm quickly learning that journalists are not exactly the revered and respected societal group that I once thought.

The reason I became interested in the vocation was to pursue the truth, an honourable goal. Sadly, it all seems to be about the quick hits of pseudo-information that passes as news.

Because of the value placed on ad revenue and getting the story first instead of getting it right, the news industry is in shambles...and that is not news. As someone in the business, albeit on the entry level, I am becoming more disenchanted with it every day.

Myth: The truth matters above all else.
Fact: The truth only matters if you get it first, and even then getting a story expediently, right or not is always preferred. A retraction, while messy, can always be printed and in most cases will go unnoticed anyway.

Myth: Balance is required.
Truth: The story is only as good as its sources. If one side of a story doesn't talk or is late getting back to a reporter, chances are the story will run as is. Who's fault is this? The reporter is working on a deadline and needs to file but the story will read like a one-sided editorial. In a medical story for instance, if you interview a patient who claims to be cured of an incurable disease from a naturopathic doctor, the reporter should ideally have a response from the medical community.

It's still a human interest story regardless, but since naturopathy isn't exactly recognized my the majority of M.D.'s it could be interpreted as 100% fact.

I wrote a story like this and couldn't get an M.D. on the line, not even a specialist until after the story went to print. I even pushed the story off a week to try further to get someone on the phone. When my call was finally returned it was the day the paper ran with the story. I was pleased with it, but it could have been better and more balanced


Myth: Journalists are noble creatures
Truth: Reporting in many cases is just a job

This is the worst realization I have ever come to and it's why I'm not as excited about my career path as I was a year ago. Much of what I write is mundane and of little interest to me but I tough it out anyway so I can collect a paycheck. I am ashamed to say that money is part of my motivation, or even on some days my primary motivation.

Investigative journalism is a dirty job, and if you're going to go that route in a community newspaper, chances are you'll piss off someone you care about. My values and my dedication align more with my friends and relationships than my job. I will not sacrifice friendships to get a story. If that means I end up writing fluffy feature pieces almost exclusively, so be it.

There seems to be little trust of journalists or newspapers now. With characters like Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass, why should the everyman trust what's written? Well I don't think the writer should be given carte blanche, but the cold shoulder is not the answer either. Question everything, but understand that the journalist has a job to do and when the whole story isn't there, try to ask why that is. Some blame should land on the writer, but not all...in some cases anyway.

Like with anything, you can find both good and bad in the world of professional journalism, you just need to dig. The worst part about it now is that there are very few in the mainstream that break convention, bend the rules and keep it interesting. Did Gonzo die with Hunter S. Thompson?

I'll rant on the news aesthetic a different time.