BEWARE OF THE NEWS WRITER

I feel for any intelligent and opinionated journalist that finds his/herself reduced to news writing. It's somewhere every young journo will undoubtably start out, writing small news stories for what ever publication it happens to be. However the mechanical and uniform structure of a news story allows no room for creativity, personal opinion or even intelligent input.

It could be argued that people want none of the above when being fed the news they read. That is most likely true to an extent, opinion and in-depth commentary is usually reserved for features. This is exaclty the reason I sympathise with news writers. They are virtually brainless writers who formulate words in to the 'correct' order, from a brief shoved under their nose. Though I don't for a second blame them, most are young and eager for experience, if not then it would only be right to assume the money is good. Hey, if the money's good then who's complaining? Possibly those with a little more integrity and pride in their writing, or is that just hubris?

The news writers' one chance for any type of self-expression comes with adjectives. Probably the only time at which a subtle word in a news story can reveal the writers true feelings towards what they are writing about. Since of course, any outright bias or opinion would immediately be edited out.

Another beef I have with this whole journalism game and more specifically news writing, is a news writers ability to sound like he/she knows exactly what they are talking about when they don't. A valuable skill to have in life. A skill that will come in use during interviews, business meetings and everyday life in general, when faking knowledge can get you a step-up. But pretending you know what you are talking about can come back to bite you in the ass, hard. Often news writers are given briefs on subjects they hold no previous knowledge of, be it economics, a specific sport, politics and whatever else. This is when adjectives can hurt you.

Overindulge in positive words when describing an event or performance, and you can be sure experts in such an area will gravitate to that comments box or email address and let you know what should have been written. Personal experience has told me journalists will be ruthless in defence of their uninformed opinions.

Think of a subject you feel most passionate about, one you know you hold a vast amount of knowledge on. Now imagine someone who you know can't possible - for whatever reason - be as well informed as you in such an area. Think how it would feel to have that person try and force their opinion on you and others. That would bug you right? Because you know they're wrong, and they are potentially changing the views of others to suit their own. They're spreading the misinformation. You may tell them, yet only after a lengthy defence of their claims will they back down, finally recognising your superior amount of knowledge on the subject. That is how confident, cheeky and ceaseless journalists can be when trying to defend a view they have, on a subject they know nothing about. And people wonder why things they read in the papers are ultimately found to be untrue or greatly exaggeratted. It's not always a journalist trying to create a more dramatic story, sometimes they just simply have no clue what they're on about. They are to write and express a specific opinion, not to question that opinion.

So be weiry of journalists and new writers in particular. Take note of the name at the bottom of that article and question it's integrity. There is this view that much of what is written in respected publications must be at least partially true. Though lets just say, not everything being written is done so by an expert in that specific field. Just because words are spoken or written with confidence, doesn't mean the person spewing them out has the faintest idea what they are banging on about.