Young people are often accused of naivety. But in journalism, naivety can be powerful.
Being naive means sounding innocent or unsophisticated about something. You often get accused of naivety when you question why things are the way they are. Many people hate being accused of that, so they accept generally accepted standards — a fancy term I like is “prevailing paradigms.”
Often these are notions that some problems are so rooted that they can’t be fixed so you just have to accept them: polluted rivers or entrenched corruption or homelessness or discriminatory policies.
When you question these notions you might be accused of being naive. I say wear that like a badge. Why? Because if we accept problems without seeking solutions we won’t ever improve a community or society or nation. And that means that you must reject the idea that some problems can’t be solved.
It means we have to go back to the idea that everyone deserves clean air and water, healthy food, a basic education, shelter and safety. Nowadays you might add internet access, heat and electricity to that list and maybe a decent transportation system. The more I add, the more naive I sound.
Question prevailing paradigms.
Good journalism comes from asking why people don’t have these things, not from accepting that they don’t have them.
So I suggest this: Draw an imaginary line. It represents a perfect world. In a perfect world everyone would have those things I listed: clean air and water, healthy food, etc. Then draw a line next to it that represents the current situation, and make the space between them wider the more off we are from that perfect world. Therein lies your story.
How far off is your community from having clean water or clean air? How bad are diets or how bad is the food shortage?
Then ask why. Why are people drinking or fishing out of contaminated water streams? Why are people going hungry? Why are people homeless? These are basic questions that come from the naive perspective that these problems shouldn’t exist in a perfect world.
Only when you ask these questions can you get to the heart of causes. Here is the hard part. The accusation of naivety comes not because these problems can’t be solved. It comes because the solutions are complicated. Sometimes they are really complicated. So the naivety comes in the idea that no one — including you or me — is willing to take the time and effort and brain power to unravel all those complications to get to solutions.
Prove them wrong.
This all gets to the two traits that make someone a great journalist: Persistence and patience. It is the persistence to not just walk away when someone tells you that you are being naive or that a problem is too complicated, and the patience to work through the complicated elements.
All the complications people will throw at you are like protective layers around a problem. They are like the levels you need to surmount in a video game.
Once you peel them away, you get to causes that are pretty basic: Not enough money because people with money aren’t willing to spend it; a lack of power because people with power aren’t willing to cede it; and basic human failings like racism, homophobia, sexism or greed.
If you can call out people or communities or government representatives on their racism or homophobia or sexism or greed, maybe you can get them to work on solutions. Only by finding solutions to problems can we get a little closer to that perfect world.
Isn’t a perfect world the one you want to work towards? Or am I being naive?
Questions to consider:
1. What does the author mean by “prevailing paradigms”?
2. Why can naivety be powerful in journalism?
3. What are some problems in your community that people seem to accept without question?