I've rarely met a journalist who covers politics who hasn't got some crush on history. But it's odd how the profession that loves to review grand sweeps of changing tides is held back by the ownership of the outlets. In the end, the owners create the conditions for publication.
If you are a working journalist, you both "know" that ownership creates tension that can never be resolved, but you tell yourself (and your profession) that you will personally work VERY HARD to never let it effect you.
Or at least I said that at age 27 when I was reporting.
Or at least I said that at age 27 when I was reporting.
I was not cynical about journalism when I worked in the profession. I still can't help but love journalism, what is does when its good. Journalism does good stuff. It does. But it's not noble unless its actually being noble. It doesn't round up based on everyone's work.
And I will never, ever, ever say I was a top-flight journalist or even a great one. I did the best I could or knew how, and yet I look back on my stories and see nothing but errors in judgment based on how naive or limited my goals were. JUST GET IT OUT, someday I wanted.
Leaving an intentional career in reporting, I made the old joke actors make: a guy shovels elephant crap for the circus. He complain to his coworker, "look how much crap I have to shovel every day!" The coworker says, "well why not get another job?"
"What and leave the circus?"
"What and leave the circus?"
But of my entire career, my favorite story was the one I worked hardest on and still got beat (ie she had better reporting) by a woman now at NYT. Whose work I've long admired and still do.
Sometimes you gotta know when it's not for you after a certain age.
Sometimes you gotta know when it's not for you after a certain age.
