The biggest problem I have in journalism is being quoted or misquoted and then being asked to defend something I haven't said.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It's a problem sometimes when you speak to journalists. They quote you, and then they read what they wrote, and then they even explain it. It's dangerous.
Journalists have misquoted people for so long - and quoted them out of context that for many people like to have their words on record.
The thing that bothers me about journalism is the false equivalency we sometimes place on certain issues.
I've had more misrepresentations than I can handle, and people have told the wickedest lies about me. A lot of them have taken their frustrations out on me, and I don't like that because it can wound. Not necessarily me, but those around me. Journalists can be so bad.
I would be lying if I said the journalism doesn't reflect my own choices as a reporter and a writer: what to say, what to emphasize, how to say it, what is true or untrue.
When people blanket a whole class of people with statements, I just think that is unfair to everybody. I could do the same thing about media. I can do the same thing about politicians or lawyers, and they're just never accurate.
I'm trying to correct what is wrong in journalism today: wasting users' time.
Journalism is a flawed profession, but it has a self-correcting mechanism. The rule of journalism is: talk to everybody.
As a reporter you tend to seek coherence from your subject or your source - it all needs to add up and make sense. In truth, in reality, there's often a great deal of murkiness and muddiness, confusion and contradiction.
Journalism is the protection between people and any sort of totalitarian rule. That's why my hero, admittedly a flawed one, is a journalist.
No opposing quotes found.