I really enjoyed these articles, in how they help visualize the writing process. Particularly with Rosenthal’s article, I was reminded of the classic video of Kurt Vonnegut drawing story structures on a blackboard; I’m continually reminded of the benefits forays into fiction-style provide. Drawing from other genres of writing, and thinking about journalism as the collision between narrative and informational, hopefully will inform my writing a little more. Great quote from George Saunders (which I’m going to butcher) along the lines of “ you should write how you talk and think, so talk the way you want to write,” which more generally I think applies to the idea that our output is founded in curation of our input. Reading varied writing that I appreciate is the best way to write how I’d like to. I also was interested in the way McPhee celebrated the theme-driven story narrative, in opposition to the chronological one; I wanted to read Preston’s article analyzing its structure, so I broke it up and was happy to find it constantly disrupted chronology. It started in the present election, jumped back to 2021, moved forward, then jumped back to 2016 and moved forward, then jumped to the present, only for a brief encounter with Eisenhower in the far-past. I see how this structure works – and it works well for this analytical / opinion style article – but I’m wondering whether I’ll be able to do something thematic for my longform article. I was just writing out a layout, and I’m wondering how to plan my article before getting the sources and interviews? Is that even a good idea, or should i just immerse and figure it out after? Hard to know how much to prepare without it interfering with my openness to change, in the moment of reporting. 

Despite really enjoying these articles, I’m having a hard time immediately transferring them to my practice. One thing I got from the McPhee piece was how personal his process is – it feels very dependent on the kind of person you are. He talks about the personalized system that was created for him on Kedit; we now have so many different programs we could use, but choosing one is daunting. There’s a turn towards online softwares, and I agree that they’re helpful; transcription softwares especially save so much time, and google drive does a great job of keeping my information backed up and easily accessible. My immediate thoughts were 1) people are turning towards AI to help in their articles… I get that it’s a helpful tool, but I worry that it’ll take away creative potential and limit me, so I don’t use it. It feels like journalism is dependent on work – the best articles are ones where you can tell how much time the author put into them, and that work is unavoidable. But do tools like AI help us cut out the unnecessary work, or just constrict our whole process? 2) on the opposite hand (!) I’m still a huge proponent of paper and analog work. Maybe it’s just because I can romanticize the article-creating process better when I imagine myself working with sprawled papers (and I think being able to romanticize your work process is one of the few ways of keeping yourself constantly engaged) but I really enjoy working with paper; I also just feel more personally connected to the work when I can hold it. Regardless, this is making me want to start printing everything I write to engage with it that way. Regardless of the actual process, I was really grateful for the way McPhee treats writing with a “i’ll do my best,” mindset. Especially in a class of really dedicated students, I think we have to submit to the story’s will. If the effort’s been put in, it’s been put in. Learning when to put the pen down, or close the computer, will probably make our final results better.