The importance of NLGJA

Gay Marriage is one of the most prominent issues of our generation. The subject was well discussed among mass medias in 1996, when the "Defense of Marriage Act", or 'doma' for short, was reviewed and passed by the Supreme Court. Where were it's defenders? By that time, one would assume the proliferators of this-and-that on the grasses of Berkeley had few minds left to persuade. The only coverage I remember of this issue (granted, I was only 8 years old) was of graying and balding men speaking harshly and unfavorably, serving as a catalyst for similar discussions held by the parents of my peers. One organization sought to increase the fair-sided coverage of this and other LGBT issues: The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association.

Having an organization working within the media to press LGBT issues is as necessary as having a US Ambassador for the UN, or a defendant in a ANY trial. How will their side be heard? How can one claim to understand the issue when they have not researched both sides? To fill the 'fair and balanced' shoes our nation so proudly claims, there must be a yang to the conservative's yin. Both sides of an issue must be exposed, even if some points may hurt the fight. This ensures the endurance of democracy by allowing viewers to decide for themselves. And even though organizations such as the NLGJA may not win every battle, their existence and persistence is slowly winning the war.

How can, or do you, treat minorities with respect in the media?

How do you make everyone happy when writing a news article? Yes, the PC terms are always acceptable, but they're the most vanilla as well. And what of certain races who use their own defamatory descriptions as a warm greeting? Where does a journalist draw the line? I find the only way to stay neutral in such an article is to use as much vanilla as possible, and ask. Ask the people you interviewed: what do they prefer to be called? Ask the internet. Ask the editor. Blacks no longer want to be 'African Americans'. Just 'Blacks'. But since my education stressed the use of the latter term, this is like nails on a chalkboard. However, chances are a writer doesn't need a racial slur to make their story interesting. If they do, then they're not effective writers.

Is journalistic writing hard?

As mentioned in the previous post, I have always had trouble truncating my language. Little did I know this would be the entire premise of the field I was entering. Goody! I find it almost boring to write in what is called a 'journalistic style'; cold, hard facts have never been my forte.

And yet, as I began the writing and editing process, I found that the journalistic style is surprisingly uncomplicated and requires so few elaborations. It's almost as if I can have a checklist: Lede, body, least important info, who, what, when, where, how, why, check, check, check. I'm becoming addicted.

Chelsea

What are the challenges you face as a writer?

When asked, this question always momentarily perplexes me. Where do I start? As the daughter of an editor, my grammar was corrected the day I began to speak. As a result, I soared through Shirley English in middle school, rarely had a grammatical error on my AP practice essays, and have always been considered an eloquent speaker. Or so my mother says.

However, becoming a journalist brings a new set of challenges to the table. Now, I must nitpick over every letter of every sentence I write. I must consider tenses, past participles, independent clauses, when to use the exception to the rule...when it's appropriate to break the rule entirely.

In news media- where do you draw the line? When should one write elegantly and when should one stick to the facts? Because one is more fun.

Also, I find it challenging to not write long sentences.

Sincerely,
Chelsea