What defines a good journalist? This is a question I've thought about many times, especially when I read articles or columns of different magazines and newspapers. I suppose you do exactly the same: wonder about certain characteristics that identify a journalist as good.
Once I read an article written by Gonzalo Torrente Ballester, who is, in my opinion, one of the most important writers ever. The article was entitled "Periodistas y escritores" (Journalists and writers). In this article he tried to compare a journalist to a writer and expose their differences. However, I'm not going to mention his view on writers, I am only going to concentrate on the aspects which define a journalist.
The first thing the author makes clear is that the relationship between the journalist and reality is much more faithful than a writer's. Ballester also believes that not everyone who writes in a newspaper is a real journalist, since someone who only collaborates occasionally with the paper has more freedom. This you can see in columns written by independent writers or in the readers' own section of the paper. The writer does not need to use a specific language or style. Moreover, the subject chosen is often their own decision, as for journalists it usually is not. Thus, there is a wider field of choices in a writer's work while some journalists are frustrated by their powerlessness to choose what they cover.
While reading a piece of writing one notices whether the journalist is bad or good; if we, the readers, are able to figure out his opinion (except if it was his job of expressing it), then he is considered a bad journalist.
What I find more interesting in the article, is Ballester's point of view on manipulation: "This way of writing that nowadays is called 'manipulation', and that probably it is, seems to me the most difficult thing of the job." (editor's translation) And boom! This is what is really hard in a journalist's job and Ballester said it in a sentence.
The point is, how does one create this, let's call it, art of manipulating? I looked the word 'manipulation' up in the dictionary. I will rewrite its definition so you are able to feel the same disappointment I felt. Manipulation: "exerting shrewd or devious influence especially for one's own advantage", which means, to cleverly use power or influence to affect somebody by making judgements about a situation, behaving in a dishonest indirect way. At first, it gave me the impression that the concept is applied in a rather negative/pejorative way.
Surely it is wrongly used by many, but it makes us writers rethink about our position in society, since we attempt to change people's view on something by giving our opinion we believe to be right. Therefore, I think that one can conclude that this explanation is an unfair one and is obviously lacking certain aspects, since manipulation is decisive in the definition of a good journalist.
I strongly believe that the art of manipulating someone is a skill. One may follow every single rule in order to make an article manipulative. However, one may fail. This notion is not about structuring a text under certain patterns, or writing an opinion-editorial making use of expensive words. For me, creativity and talent are the necessary requirements, as well as commitment, to be a good journalist.
Thus, I make an appeal to everyone who wants to become a writer or a journalist: explore other fields of knowledge, read books, do things you like to do, so you will have imagination and inspiration to produce great pieces of writing. These are tips of my own that I hardly recommend to everyone. Do remember that the key is in having fun. And before I forget, I must say to not give up if you have faith in yourself. Many critics have been wrong before. But take their criticism into consideration and, therefore, you will be able to improve yourself. Above all, let readers decide how to judge your work.
