How to be a credible journalist
I am a journalist for 22 years. Almost 23. Despite having made my career basically on a small island, Madeira, in Portugal, the matrix of occupation applies worldwide. Well, not at all. There are states where being a journalist is a life of oppression and intimidation.
While today's journalists from reaching the media with courses in journalism, law, or other, more years ago the entry was made on a large percentage of the fall by the common denominator for writing. That was my case.
Then there are many courses and even the possibility of college to do an up-grade the knowledge. But, in essence, the years of experience qualify for the essence of the profession.
There are basic rules with which the journalist has to cement his job, if you want to be respected, not by the ferocity of the pen, but rather the recognition of who is on the other side of which is honest and credible. These two words are vital, although the former is stronger and the second a result of the first. If the journalist is honest with the information acquired and transmitted with accuracy and impartiality, turns out to be recognized for its credibility. That is, the reader or listener, will get used to believe what he says.
However, as the journalist who has care, such as the constant need to cross information sources to be sure of the truth, sometimes incurs some inaccuracies that may affect your status. But in such cases we must take head-on the mistakes and pass that information to the reader. Should be clear that this does not happen often.That has been my stance, even though, may well be right, wrong and now know less correct information to the reader, is the most disturbing things to assimilate.Therefore, we must be careful because sometimes there are attempts to manipulate the journalist in order to convey the particular message.
In this sense, there are six universal principles in journalism that you need to accomplish in each story. For no matter how small.
These are the six golden rules of journalism:
- What (that should explain what happened, what will happen, or what is happening, mostly used in radio and television in direct)
- Who (in the case, Mr X, the President, the institution, and so forth)
- When (you must specify the time, day of week and may also have the time or as time of day, morning, afternoon and evening)
- Where (which indicates where it happened)
- How (conditions)
- Why (revealing the motives and reasons).
So after these basic rules, the journalist has a long way toward affirming in journalism.
We need know to have a sniff to news, to escape the routine of the news agenda, which are usually marked by all the media. Even here, the journalist must seek to bring a different news, but can’t stop making the news for which he was entrusted by his superiors. You have to be creative within the standards.
And when I say sniff news is how to escape the routine and go in search of novelties that are out there everywhere.
Then you must have a balance in the news. The journalist does not have to be a champion of misfortune or the opposite. That is, can’t always look that bad, or otherwise, nor have a 90% good news and bring out the 10% who are ill.
There is a maxim in journalism that is "bad news, good news." Without the consumer has a voracious appetite for the bad news, the woes of others, but the truth is that I see the opposite in this maxim. I would said that is the minimum in journalism. It’s time to be agents of change in morbid chip that is in every one of us.
So, after these words, what paths to follow someone who wants to follow journalism? Should study and acquire as many skills as possible to get stronger in journalism, given that most training will meet the practical day-to-day with the daily experience with reality.