I've met many journalists who impress me with their ability to play it straight. I think they're the exception to the rule.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
By virtue of some of the ways the game is played, in terms of message discipline, in terms of access for reporters, and especially in the way that sources and subjects, especially famous subjects, treat the media, almost by default there's more news that's falling into books.
In journalism, there has always been a tension between getting it first and getting it right.
Journalism is the protection between people and any sort of totalitarian rule. That's why my hero, admittedly a flawed one, is a journalist.
As a journalist, I'm not supposed to be the subject, but as an author, I'm fair game - another ingredient in the media soup.
I had sort of given up on conventional journalism. I found it far too restrictive.
Journalists in newspapers and in many magazines are not permitted to be subjective and tell their readers what they think. Journalists have got to follow a very strict formulaic line, and here we come, these non-fiction writers, these former journalists who are using all the techniques that journalists are pretty much not allowed to use.
For somebody who is a journalist, I can be awfully unobservant sometimes.
Journalism is a flawed profession, but it has a self-correcting mechanism. The rule of journalism is: talk to everybody.
Journalists can get very pompous, especially in the formalized days of 'Meet the Press,' when they took themselves so damned seriously.
Journalists don't have audiences - they have publics who can respond instantly and globally, positively or negatively, with a great deal more power than the traditional letters to the editor could wield.