Where has journalism gone?

I'm sitting here, pondering the downfall of the print industry -- well, let's hope it's not that bad, but to be sure, newspapers are struggling in a way I've never seen before -- and wondering what we writers can do about it. The thing is, the newspaper industry as a whole has blamed things like Craigslist, online advertising, the immediacy of online news, and even things like this little blog, which spits out opinions along with millions of other bloggers, for the struggles they are having now.

I agree that some of that -- a large portion of that -- is probably true. But I also wish to hell that the industry would quit whining. Because during my 18-plus years as a reporter, here's what I saw -- even when times were good: management grew, grew, grew; time and resources for reporters shrunk, shrunk, shrunk. Good journalism, it seemed, became fewer and far between.

Now that's not to say there aren't great writers out there. In my Alaska world, I can count several whom I think still maintain that level of integrity that put them in a class their own. And they do it despite the constraints put on them by their employers.

But here's what really made me start thinking about all of this the other day, while talking to my other half, who's also in the print industry, about it. And it has nothing to do with shrinking budgets and expanding management. The question is: "Where did the REAL stories go?"

He and I differ on this subject quite a bit, and I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. Or, maybe there is and I'm completely blind to it, but it is one of the reasons I decided I needed to write on my own, choose my stories and follow my interests, which (in my mind anyway) would lead to a better product.

Let me explain. I think I'm beating around the bush too much. My question, when talking to my husband about all of this, is "Should newspapers write the 'he said-she said' version of every story -- you know the line we all hear as journalism students -- "Be fair, two-sided, let the reader decide after reading the facts, etc..."

Or "Should newspapers have their belief system -- be it conservative, liberal, economic, environmental, whatever" -- and then defend that stand to all ends?

Both sides make sense, but they also represent potential problems. Writing the two-sided story is, as a human, impossible. That's just me talking, and maybe there are scores of other journalists out there who would disagree and call me crazy. But my argument is that we are all human, we all come with our inner values and beliefs that no matter how hard we try to keep out of our "writing lives" must surely seep in. Even the way in which we interpret a comment from a source can be skewed in ways that are completely unconscious.

I can honestly say that when I worked as a newspaper reporter, I thought every single story I wrote represented a fair and equal side to whatever the issue was I was reporting on. I talked to those "for" an issue, and scribbled down their quotes dutifully. I talked to those "against" it, and did the same. In the story, both were quoted.

However, ask the readers and I'm sure you will get a different story -- "She was way too liberal on that!" they might say, "Or she totally misinterpreted what I meant!" another might accuse. Even the placement of each person's views within the story surely, somehow subconsciously, sent the reader to the path that was most aligned with my beliefs. Or, on the flip side, in an overzealous attempt to "hide" my beliefs, I'm sure there were times when my stories led readers down the opposite path.

And you know what? They believe what they are saying as much as I believe what I wrote.

And therein lies the rub (one of my most favorite but hated cliches of all time -- what EXACTLY does "therein lies the rub" mean, anyway?!).

The thing is, we all perceive life and events through our own filters, developed around how we grew up, the people around us, the places we've been, what we've experienced, and how we view the world. Asking a human to take those filters away is damned near impossible, and when newspapers claim to have fair and two-sided coverage of any event/aspect, etc., I think they are thinking much more highly of themselves as they have a right to -- somehow transcending human nature to provide the "facts." Give me a break, oh, lofty newspaper that you are.

So, you can see where I'm going with this. For me, writing is MOST honest, MOST fair, when written from the perspective of the writer -- i.e. scenario No. 2: "Newspapers should have their belief system -- be it conservative, liberal, economic, environmental, whatever, and then defend that stand to all ends."

Think about it: That is why blogs, online news, Twitter, texting, my-spacing, Facebooking, and all the other nonsense out there on the Internet is so popular -- we can't get enough of it. It's like the ultimate "chatting over the backyard fence with your neighbor." These kinds of conversations are what interest people because they are about real people.

Newspapers, in an effort to be so two-sided, lost sight of that a long time ago, and it's a shame because they just aren't interesting anymore. And now, as newspapers lose more and more revenue, they're doing the worst thing possible, which is to cut the lifestyles, local sports stories and real-life accounts of regular people doing regular things in favor of a condensed jumble of whatever is the news of the day. Furthermore, they're cutting staffs in such a way, that noone has time to be excited about thei jobs anymore. It's a survival game.

Through all of this, whatever the scenario, I still and always will believe that newspapers must print facts - I'm not at all saying that gossip and shoddy reporting should rule the industry. I just think newspapers have lost their personality in the struggle to keep readers, and that's where they are losing sight now -- ignoring that the readers won't care unless the newspapers really have something to say.

Consider this: You're at a party, and have two conversations. The first is with a perfectly friendly acquaintance who nods and smiles and agrees with everything you say. They don't talk or add to the conversation, but whatever you say, they just pleasantly take your position.

Before long, you're looking in desperation for the bar or a friend, or the bathroom -- anything to rescue you from this utterly B-O-R-I-N-G person.

You escape to the other side of the house and there collected around the fireplace is another acquaintance, talking about the latest "issue" of which you happen to have an opinion. He is speaking earnestly and respectful of others' opinions, but can answer every question with a fact or figure that supports his side of the argument. You find yourself drawn into this conversation, because it is making you rethink your position. You may not change your mind, but you've been challenged.

And by the fireplace you stay until the conversation ends.