Journalistic Approach Quotes

If I'm doing a story on how a single mother copes in a refugee camp, I'll go to her tent; I'll follow her when she's working, see what her daily life is like, and try to pack that into one composition, with nice light, in one frame.

When a newspaper columnist wants to write about a novel, the rule is that you're supposed to have a 'hook,' an excuse, a timely reason to bring up the book in question.

I prefer the word 'journeyman' to 'journalist' because I think that certainly, when you hear a story, you want to hear certain facts. But I also think what makes a story interesting is the points of view expressed therein.

Any good broadcast, not just an Olympic broadcast, should have texture to it. It should have information, should have some history, should have something that's offbeat, quirky, humorous, and where called for it, should have journalism, and judiciously it should also have commentary. That's my ideal.

I pivoted from a pro-Trump guy to more of a journalistic guy, and I'm going to keep making that pivot. So whenever people think of me as, like, a pro-Trump guy, I don't want people to think of me as a pro-Trump guy anymore.

I believe that music is another form of news. Music is another form of journalism to me so I have to cover all the areas with my album.

I never practice calls. Everything you hear is reactionary. The way I look at it is that broadcasters are just paid observers, just there to tell you what we see.

Speaking generally, people who are drawn to journalism are interested in what happens from the ground up less than they are from the top down.

I don't think Capote loved Smith. But he did make a deep connection. It upset some people, because that had never been the approach to journalistic crime writing, to look into the mind of the killer.

In the normal course of things, journalists want their story, and as soon as they are through with it, they pack their cameras and go. That was never the impression that David Astor gave when you were interviewed by him. It was far deeper than that.

Media organizations are frequently criticized for a heartless approach to the news. Stories that are damaging to a person's reputation make the front page just as quickly - and many would say even more quickly - as stories that enhance it.

I am not a new journalist, whatever that is. I just sit here at the typewriter and bang away at the old forms.

There is a type of snobbish, pompous journalist who thinks that the only news that has any validity is war, famine, pestilence or politics. I don't come from that school.

I treated the first few books as a very long journalistic exercise. I thought of every chapter as an article that needed to be finished.

I get a very vague idea and - perhaps because I once was a journalist, or perhaps because that's what made me want to be a journalist - I go off and explore it for a bit, rather than mapping out a plot and then filling in the research.

It doesn't matter if I go on CBS, PBS or Fox. Whoever is interviewing me is going to want to create some conflict in the story, or it's not interesting. That's just the way the news is.

We don't sit down and go, 'People are uneasy about the economy. Let's write about that.'

I always spend a good deal of time with the people I write about. I try and smell the normalcy of their lives. I try to look at the normal rhythm of their life.

I think it will be interesting to see what happens in that small confine at the White House, when you have all the media that's been assigned to cover the White House, and you start getting the same kind of questions, the same kind of approach.

I have tried to remain a working, cutting-edge journalist and I don't do it the way everybody else does it. And I think that's the difference.

News channels have always had interview shows, but we need different kinds of interviews with different kinds of interviewers - interviewers who bring different life experiences to the table.

In the United States, the mainstream news outlets like to portray themselves as observers, content to let events play out without interference. But in Britain, where crusading journalistic campaigns are part of the tradition, it is far more acceptable for reporters to become active participants, with a specific outcome in mind.

When I was a journalist, I didn't care how many people talked to Ice Cube before I talked Ice Cube. I just knew that when I talked to Ice Cube, it was going to be different than what anybody else had done, and it was the same with any group.

We still write too many stories that are "state of the race" stories that are informed almost solely by what the polling shows and by what we're then deducing about who's up, who's down, and I'm just not sure that's very helpful to readers, it certainly doesn't elevate the debate and, and the problem is if you, if you cover these things, and I don't think the Times is particularly culpable, I think other news organizations are worse, if you cover them in an entirely "who's up, who's down" horse race way.

There's several ways to be a journalist. One way is to be combative and take the person to task and what you have is a portrait of somebody defending themselves, which is interesting. The other thing is to slip into their world and really be a representative for all the people that love the experience of that artist, and have them get so comfortable that you become invisible and they're themselves.