Three things I learned in Journalism

Four years. Four years of commuting to UST from our house in Caloocan and later on in Antipolo. Numerous bus, jeepney, tricycle and train rides. Too many writing assignments and paper works that I've lost count and too many nights of companionship with my laptop and coffee... 

Four years of never-ending lessons after lessons, professors after professors and yet I've only learned three things. Yeah, just three things that I will bring throughout this profession... (If I will really pursue it). 

1. You have to be "clear, concise and consistent" in writing
• My late professor, Sir Niel Lim, said this during one of our class. In writing, one do not have to be wordy or write a lengthy piece in order to for it to be a good piece. As long as your message is clear to your readers, then the better. One must write in a concise manner to avoid boring the readers and for them to grasp what your article is all about. Also, one must be consistent in writing, so as not to confuse readers on what you're really talking about. If you stand negatively on a certain issue, let it be that way. If you are against something, have conviction to defend your side. No gray areas. 
2. "You are judged by your present article. If that article is crap, then you're a crap writer" 
• Again, Sir Niel said this in one of our class. He taught us to accept criticisms positively and learn from it. In this profession, there is no such thing as better luck next time or "pwede na". A journalist must give his 110% in this profession because what we're doing is not just writing for the sake of it but writing for the people... If one wrote an article that cannot be considered an article then he/she must evaluate oneself on why did things crash down like that... It cannot be said that it is okay that one article is crap because the previous articles have been superb because as far as journalists go, yesterday's article was stale already. 
3. "There is no such thing as objectivity in writing" 
• Sir Ian Esguerra, on of our professors broke the rules that journalists are following. One, he is a self-confessed arrogant person. Also he is very shy. Which according to him is a lethal combination, lethal in a way that it must not be the attitude of journalists. Also, he taught us that objectivity is bogus. Yes, bogus. According to him, every person, journalist or not has his/her own bias. It is not important in journalism to be free of bias and write objectively because that sort of thing does not really happen... what is important is that a journalist must report the truth and the truth only. And I believe him. If I would be tasked to write an article on a certain issue with which I am against, I will have to evoke a certain emotion while writing it. That emotion is evidence of my own bias.However, if I will write it and tell the people the truth about the issue, whether it may slant positively or negatively is not a big deal. As long as one report according to the truth and the truth alone, objectivity will remain in its place-- out of the picture.