By JESSICA SELLS
November 26, 2006

There has been some talk about my articles being “hateful” and how I’m an “angry person.” I just want to clear that up a little.

First, I’m not an angry person, though I do show my irritation at stupidity more than some people. Second, I don’t think my articles are “hateful.” One friend referred to them as “passionate.” I like that term better (but I don’t honestly think my articles are that either). Third, maybe there is just a general misconception about what journalism is.

To understand what journalism is, maybe it is good to understand what journalism is not. Journalism is not “good” just because it makes you feel all mushy and happy inside. Good journalism digs below the layers of BS and gets to something that matters. While that something may not be what people want to hear, it is supposed to be something that makes people think. And, let’s be honest, thinking isn’t always fun or happy.

Journalism should inspire people to take a minute and actually look at what is going on around them. Journalism is often intended to bring out an emotional response. There is the side of journalism that is purely devoted to relating facts, e.g., articles that simply tell “what happened” with no biases or interpretations. This side of journalism is often referred to as “cut-and-dry.”

Well, that’s all fine and good for some people, and there are many journalists who are quite good at writing in that style. I’ll be frank -- writing in a cut-and-dry style bores me to tears.

Then there is the side of journalism that requires participation on the part of the writer. This side of journalism is sometimes referred to as emotive, “propaganda-ish,” controversial, sensitive, and so forth. I like this style of journalism because it forces me to think about the issue; I actually have to put what I really think onto paper, and back it up.

I realize that there will be people who say I’m wrong. You know what? That’s okay. Journalism doesn’t have to agree with everyone. All I’m asking you to do is actually think about what you read. In the same way that we take television newscasts given by bottle blondes with too much makeup with a grain of salt, so should we take print journalism.

There is generally some truth in the story, but a lot of journalism is throwing something against the wall and seeing what sticks. The side of journalism that I love is designed to make you feel and think. While I do my best to be factually-accurate, I am biased. I don’t try to hide my bias. And, to be quite frank, if you don’t like my style of writing, and all you want to do is talk about how “angry” I am, do us both a favor and don’t read my articles.