Independence from Faction

One of the largely debated topics in journalism is independence from faction. Why?

The intent of journalism is to inform, not to manipulate. To accomplish this, journalists don't need to be neutral, just independent from what they are covering.

But how are journalists supposed to remain independent? How independent is independent enough? And when are exceptions allowed?

First of all, you should not be a journalist if you don't love your job. This will help you remain independent of monetary influences. But what about other influences? Such as what you are covering? Many famous reporters often included their opinions in their stories, such as Walter Cronkite. Anderson Cooper is also known for getting emotionally involved when he covered Hurricane Katrina. Is that ok?

Personally, I think it depends. Sometimes that added emotion can have large positive effects on the piece, but other times it can come off as biased and insensitive. You just have to be careful. People aren't reading the newspaper to have a million different opinions and emotions thrown in their faces. At the same time, they don't want to be reading something so completely void of emotion that it sounds like a robot. I think in Anderson Cooper's situation, it greatly added to the impact of the story. Although many criticized it, for me it was a breath of fresh air to see that he is a normal human being just like me who has feelings and emotions, and his feelings and emotions at that point in time were representing the feelings and emotions of everyone involved in the tragedy. It was raw, deep, touching emotion. It was real journalism. Completely real and nothing fake.

Here's another example: Linda Greenhouse was a journalist who worked for the New York Times. She attended a protest for "Freedom of Choice" -- on her own free time. When the New York Times found out, they reprimanded her because they didn't want the public to think she was representing the views and opinions of the paper. Was this fair?

This is where many disagree. In my opinion, I don't think what the New York Times did to her was fair. She did it on her own time, and in no way was she saying that those were the views of the New York Times. Journalists have lives too. They have opinions and feelings. They are a part of society. And they should have the same rights as everyone else. People need to realize that what journalists do on their own time is not connected to their jobs. I'm a Mormon. Does that mean I should be reprimanded because me going to church every Sunday shows that those are the views of whatever business I'm working for? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. My personal life is completely separate from my life as a journalist. My writing will remain independent of the fact that I'm a Mormon, no matter how devout I am.

Yes, certain things like me being a Mormon could have effects on my work, like not wanting to cover certain stories, or the language used in my writing, etc. While I don't come out and say, "I'm a Mormon and this is what I believe," people might still be able to notice the little differences between me and another journalist just based on factors that I have no control over. But that is what makes each and every journalist unique. That is what makes each person's writing unique -- the beliefs, values, and attributes that makes up each person and their writing. And I believe that is what makes each story stand out. That is what gets the public to keep reading.