Why journalism?

At what point does being a good journalist include the act of being a good writer as well? Because that's all I have. Two weeks into journalism school and I've been intimidated on a daily basis by the sheer number of people who seem to be better informed and more outspoken than I am. Agreed, I'm not outspoken at all, but I'm always afraid that when I do say something, I'm going to come off stupid. Before I came here, I was of the assumption that I was one of the most erudite and smart people around - at least, my friends seem to suggest so. I thought that I'd be able to sail through these courses with only the regular addition of physical work to my already existing "intellectual capabilities". Now, all that I'm hoping for is to make it out of this place without feeling like a moron and letting the intellect marinate in its new-found stellar company.

For quite some time now, I've been really interested in letting my scientific and journalistic interests converge, and that would mean taking a few leaves out of the notebooks of Feynman and Sagan, perhaps even Dawkins - but I hate Dawkins. Four years' engineering education can leave even the most repressive engineering student with a scientific curiosity and an addiction to the scientific method. Before 2006, I didn't care for the future of semiconductor technology. Now, in 2011, it's the point from which I branch out to get my daily dose of tech. news. And when it comes to tech. news, there's two ways of looking at it.

The first would essentially be a study of where technology is "taking" us, a techno-social approach that focuses on technology's interaction with people and its ability to define our lifestyles. Such a focus would (or should?) also include a coverage of the policy perspectives that the government must assume in order to let tech. develop, in order for tech. to find its rightful place in the society, and in order for tech. to assist with governance.

The second way to look at tech. news would be to ensure that any developments find their way into all corners of the geeksphere, i.e., to cater solely to the community that works closely with technology on a daily basis. Ars Technica and Mashable are good examples of this sort of writing, where the focus is not on the people itself as it is on the products of technology that cater to the people.

I'm interested in a combination of the two, and that doesn't mean pursuing both simultaneously. In simple words, it's being a geek with a sense of social responsibility - rather, a deliberated sense of social responsibility (I'm not saying geeks aren't social responsible - I'm saying the moniker "geek" does not imply an obligation to be socially responsible). For example, consider the following few posts I read recently on AT.

1. FBI arrests 16 linked with Anonymous' cyberattacks


2. A new fuel that reversibly stores solar energy


3. Developer gets Chrome OS running on Macbook Air

The first one involves the misuse of tech. to antagonize public institutions. The second one is pure tech. but with a significant amount of social repercussions, albeit long-winded repercussions. The third article is all tech. with no pretensions of social responsibility. I'm not interested in the first one. I'm definitely not interested in the third one. The contents of the second article, I love! It's not because I consider ergonomics to be an awesome field of study - I do! - but because it's the closest any subject can come to to reflecting what I think technology's purpose is and what it's responsibilities are.

Yes, social media is a product of technology, too (wouldn't have happened without transistors and Moore's law), but even though it has acquired the ability to effect changes in the public sphere, it's capricious without the human user. High-energy physics, power plant design and cellular automatons, on the other hand, are purely technical assemblages that proffer advantages of their deployment that overwhelm the disadvantages irrespective of human intervention.

That's the idea I want to take up, handle, and be the force behind the dissemination of. That's the sort of science I want to keep clean and understandable. That's the sort of pursuit I want to encourage by highlighting as well as exposing. Yes, there's a long way to go, but I'll find one that fits my desires best. Yes, I could also do with some practical experience to acclimatize myself with the fundamental sensitivities of the subject, but such a consideration is purely logistical, perhaps even purely infrastructural. At the end of the day, I believe I should be able to deconstruct the news, access an audience, retain it, influence attitudes, and do it repeatedly, scalably. That's where I'm heading.

Why journalism? That's why.