What’s on the iPod: Nothing! I’ve gone fishing instead. 🙂
I’m north right now, hopefully catching large fish instead of inventing stories about ones that got away.
Before I left, I interviewed company risk people for an article on odd risks. One in particular was a woman from the NRA. She shared some incredible stories and told me some of the things she personally has had happen to her as a result of simply being employed by a group that is, to say the least, controversial.
What was obvious was that she deals daily with differing opinions, passionate stances on both sides of the Second Amendment, and that these risks are part-and-parcel of her risk management plan. Since I’m on the fence most of the time regarding gun control (I see both sides quite clearly and have chosen not to make a decision), I was able to interview her without getting either gung ho or caustic. I simply had a conversation with a nice person.
Being objective is a great skill for any writer to learn or hone. While you may have a strong reaction to other people’s beliefs, that gets you only so far when getting the story. Some of the morning “news” show celebrities (I can’t refer to them as journalists, I’m sorry) lose me the minute they cop a tone, an attitude, or inject their own opinion into a news story. No. Wrong. It’s news. It’s not commentary. If you feel compelled to comment, take “news” out of your description and title and compete with Ellen Degeneres, who is infinitely more watchable.
But suppose you’re given the opportunity to write a story on the flip side of your own beliefs? Could you do it? Would you? Or would you pass up the chance to hear from the horse’s mouth why they think or act the way they do?
Consider this scenario: you have the chance to interview pedophiles who find themselves attracted to children (technically not pedophiles because they’ve not done more than fantasize about children). You’re repulsed by the idea that someone would even consider such an act. But what makes these people tick? Is there a pattern of behavior or some similar trigger that may have sent them in that direction? Are there reasons or thought processes that allow them to rationalize the behavior?
Would you take the job or would you turn it down because of your beliefs?
I took the job.
Years ago, I talked via email with three pedophiles (or “children lovers” as they like to be called). What I got was a fascinating group of conversations with people whose habits disgust me, but who were honest and respectful of my stance without my having to state it. I was honest and respectful right back because my beliefs being forced on them wouldn’t make an ounce of difference, just as their beliefs weren’t going to sway me. Instead, I let them talk and I asked tough, frank questions. I got a great story out of it, and I hoped it would open the doors to more conversation. Did it? No. The magazine that bought it went out of business almost immediately after buying it.
It didn’t kill me to talk with them. It didn’t enhance their “cause” so to speak to let them talk, either. I learned something, as maybe they did, too. I hope.
That’s not saying you have to take every job that presents itself, especially if it’s something you just cannot for the life of you do objectively. But opening yourself to hearing an opposing opinion builds versatility in your listening skills. I’ve had to sit through plenty of interviews with people whose ideals are mirror opposites of mine. I kept my opinions to myself because I wasn’t writing about me — I was presenting an idea.
So if you’re presented with an opportunity and you need to find your objectivity, try this:
Put your emotions aside. Just because you are a contributor to Green Peace doesn’t mean you shouldn’t hear the flip side to the oil pipeline debate. Or you own Apple products and you’ve just scored a gig to interview Bill Gates. And vegans still wear leather shoes, so don’t think interviewing a restaurant owner who lists meat on the menu makes you hypocritical. It shows you’re open minded.
Strive for balance. There are shades of truth in both sides of any issue. Sure, you may be right as rain and evidence may back you up 100 percent, but someone came to their own truth for different reasons, and that truth may also be right for different reasons. Look for those gray areas, for that’s where your commonality lies. Example: look at the core of both Occupy Wall Street and The Tea Party. At the core: both groups want change, and neither group wants this country to fail.
Take up your flag before and after. Sure, maintain your opinion and display it as passionately as you care to. Just don’t contact a source who opposes that opinion just for the chance to browbeat them and give them a piece of your mind. It’s the wrong venue for it. At interview time, your job should be to tie on that objectivity hat that suspends your opinion and allows someone to fully explain his/her opinion.
What do you think? Would you take up/have you taken up controversial issues that oppose your own ideals? If not, why not? Would you present them objectively or would you put your own opinion in the piece?
I don't eat meat or poultry, but I wrote an article about pâté. (One of my interviewees had a lovely French accent, and even made discussing what was in pâté and related products and how they were made seem pleasant.) The one story I turned down was about sales & marketing efforts of a tobacco company.
I'm accustomed to putting my opinions to the side. I have a few nice neighbors with some extreme political/moral views, but when their political yard signs go up I don't put up opposing signs. Thanks to their yard signs I know what issues to steer clear of when speaking with them. Like you said – I'm not going to convince them they're off their rockers, and they wouldn't be able to draw me into their beliefs, so why bother? We're all entitled to our own opinions and beliefs.