In journalism it is simpler to sound off than it is to find out. It is more elegant to pontificate than it is to sweat.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
See, I have no journalism in my background, so I wasn't practised at research or writing non-fiction, nor at handling the truth in a journalistic way. Journalists know when to call a halt and write something, but I kept on looking for answers.
Well, to be honest I think I tell less truth when I write journalism than when I write fiction.
Obviously, in journalism, you're confined to what happens. And the tendency to embellish, to mythologize, it's in us. It makes things more interesting, a closer call. But journalism taught me how to write a sentence that would make someone want to read the next one.
Journalists write because they have nothing to say, and have something to say because they write.
For somebody who is a journalist, I can be awfully unobservant sometimes.
In most daily journalism, you only fact-check something if it seems a little fishy.
Journalism can never be silent: that is its greatest virtue and its greatest fault. It must speak, and speak immediately, while the echoes of wonder, the claims of triumph and the signs of horror are still in the air.
The central dilemma in journalism is that you don't know what you don't know.
Being a journalist, you write what you see. If we can't do that, what use are we? I turned years of training on myself.
In journalism, there has always been a tension between getting it first and getting it right.