Recently, a student near me was covering a news story and encountered some difficulties related to politics and business. Her family was worried that she would be accused of "blocking someone's livelihood." The student told her family, "If I'm already afraid of this and that right after entering society, why would I do this job? I'll be afraid when I receive death threats."
After hearing this, I was truly impressed by the sister's passion for journalism.
The reason I bring this up is because there are complex interview processes and details to pay attention to. In news reporting, it's easy to be utilized by certain parties due to lack of balance or excessive subjectivity on the journalist's part. She also mentioned that she had indeed believed one side's account, which led her to write an article that was perhaps overly biased.
This discussion reminded me that when I first started writing news, I would only write about one side's account well, believing that the first interviewee I spoke to was right. Then I would carelessly use this perspective to verify and ask other interviewees, and because I held a subjective consciousness, I would mistakenly believe that everyone else was lying. But actually, preconceived notions are very dangerous for journalists themselves, and it's even more dangerous if you don't realize you have such thoughts.
Later, as I encountered more and more different incidents and came across people with ulterior motives, even after helping report 90% of their account, they would still text me saying I was trying to harm them, and even harass the lawyers I interviewed. There was also a time when I verified information with a company using a business phone, but the other party obtained my personal number through various channels, suddenly messaged thanking me for the fair reporting, and then two months later I received a legal notice and was taken to court. Only after the other party lost the case a year later was my reputation cleared.
After exposure to more diverse perspectives and experiences, I gradually clarified how to maintain my own values and use my consciousness to judge what is true, what is false, or whether there is even truth and falsehood at all. Everyone's account may be true, but not necessarily right — it depends on how you select fragments and present them in an article or a video. I no longer try to pre-judge and restore "the truth" to someone, because for each person, the truth is different and its meaning is different.
Later, discussing news handling with my junior colleague, the topic of "obtaining the other party's response" came up. She said she felt the other party's response was "the same as not responding." However, I shared my own perspective on "responses."
I believe that if a journalist unilaterally thinks that an "response" is the same as no response, it's because the journalist themselves holds a subjective consciousness, thinking that the response should address the main point, the core, or some angle you want to know about. However, objectively speaking, responses include phrases like "still investigating," "unable to comment," and "we have received your suggestions" — these are all responses. At minimum, they shouldn't disappear or ignore the matter.
You don't necessarily need to pursue responses that are juicy or substantive. As long as the other party has responded with their current position, you've achieved the purpose of verification, because verification is itself a form of notification.
However, in journalism, many people will present themselves favorably, disguising themselves so you think they are the victim. What you need to learn is how to discern, clarify the situation without exposing the other party, and avoid being used as a tool — this is the survival rule in this world.
Of course, there's another aspect to lament. In the commercial realm, with interest exchanges, whether it's a win-win or a multi-party win, both parties at least gain something. However, media combines commerce and power. In a power-driven environment, there is no simple interest exchange, but rather relationships, networks, attitudes, culture, and fate — these intangible things are often the key to smooth communication. Of course, commerce is also connected to networks and relationships, but in media, when you want to obtain something, having the communication ability to make people comfortable while achieving your goals is important. But more often than not, it's related to power.
