Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Taking yourself out of the equation
I read a couple articles in the New York Times--"Obama says Health Law Shouldn't Be Excuse to Raise Rates" and an opinion piece "Faustus Makes a Deal" and was struck by the former's lack of any characterization, any presence of an authorial voice, and an excessive presence of that voice in the latter. The latter was written by David Brooks, whom I have seen speak on television, so I could hear his voice quite literally as I read this biting, satirical piece. It was the first, however, that daunted me--I've never removed myself completely from my writing; I've done the opposite, I've infused myself, poured myself into it until it's almost second nature to me to do that. I feel that it will be a significant challenge for me to effectively remove myself from my writing in this class and hope that I am not the only one facing that particular challenge!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You're certainly not the only one concerned about this. I'm sure all of us want to learn to write within the accepted parameters of Journalism without losing our identity as writers. Writing is a deeply personal pursuit, even if done for a directed purpose or commission, and every writer has their own unique style. Your style is probably just very different than Brooks' is. I think it's still possible to maintain your style while staying true to Journalistic principles like independent coverage. Chapter 5 of our 'Elements' text discusses this issue so I'm sure it's something we'll cover in the class at some point. It mentions that being impartial or neutral isn't what is meant by independence. Rather, not letting ideology turn you away from a story; keeping independence of spirit and mind. I think those requirements can still be satisfied with a passionate and personal writing style.
ReplyDeleteEmily, do you have a link the articles?
ReplyDelete