Critiquing critics: Why Is It Always You, You, You? by Rascal

Anthony Wilson-Smith airs his complaint in the print edition of this week's Maclean's magazine (Nov 1, 1999). It seems he's had it up to here with "The Curse Of Me Journalism", even though his own article seems to have fallen under its spell: so Anthony, are you saying you personally don't care for "me journalism"?

Actually, he's pretty funny when he's snotty about colleagues:

• "For those who didn't see Canada's two nationally distributed newspapers a couple of Saturdays ago, here's some of their news. Robert Mason Lee would like to talk about comparing male sexual equipment with other men, but so far, hasn't found any takers. Jan Wong took a flight that wasn't comfortable, and she didn't like the food. Leah McLaren used a cellphone with a headset, and found it really, really useful, but it's so annoying when other people use them. And Kerri Huffman went on a diet recommended by former television perosnality, but it was yucky and didn't work, so she gave it up."

But hey, I say, so what? Why shouldn't journalists write from a personal perspective? Agendas - everyone's got 'em, let's get them out front and centre instead of hiding behind the professional language of critics, reporters, editors, producers, publishers and owners. We certainly know agendas lurk behind the official and unofficial policies dictated by newsmedia-communications conglomerates, and that these filter down to anyone wanting to stay employed. In the news, you can always read the opinion somewhere between the lines. So-called objective reporting that Wilson-Smith urges us to re-embrace is a contradiction in terms, the way I see it.

Look at the selection of "news" info that we get offered: do we really need to know so much about the weather, for example? Who decided meteorologists should be a staple of television news, why not geologists or endocrinologists? It seems all very random. And how does the journalistic profession decide when to schedule of news and events as such? Bosnia is replaced by East Timor with a quick break for Sudan slave-trading in between. Crappy stuff is happening around us all the time, what gets the spotlight and for how long? Who is deciding what makes the news and what are important events this week? These decisions are being made for everyone by some few. It follows that the industry has always suffered, if not from "me journalism", at least from "we" journalism.

So I think it's not a bad thing if journalists begin to openly acknowledge themselves as the authors in their work. Wilson-Smith states that reporting shouldn't be "restricted to studying yourself and like-minded friends, it blinds you to the perspective of others and strips you of empathy." Nah-uh, mister, one thing doesn't necessarily follow the other. Self-aware people are more likely to see a different or new perspective, simply because they are aware. Hey, maybe if reporters were restricted to studying themselves and like-minded friends, then we'd have to get a properly diverse group reporting on the condition of our world and our lives... we'd finally get a true range of perspective, and maybe just possibly begin to empathize. --RBR

note: Rascal is sorry to report that Anthony Wilson-Smith's article is not reproduced at Maclean's Online, and can only be found on page 23 of the printed mag, November 1, 1999 edition.

Leave a comment

name
email (if you want to be notified)
<-- Please retype the word you see here:
Notify me when someone replies to this post?