I think I would enjoy being a "gonzo" journalist. Something that has always bothered me about news media, wether it be TV or print, is the impersonal way content tends to be delivered. This has always given me the feeling that I am being fed bullshit and is largely the reason I stay away from most news on TV.
"Gonzo" journalism abandons the practice of eliminating all objectivity from a story and incorporates the author's own voice and presence. Reading Hunter S. Thompson's piece about the action surrounding the Kentucky Derby would not have been nearly as interesting if it had been written by some non-objective reporter because it would lack Thompson's wildly entertaining personality. His "tell it like it is" style of writing creates a more revealing picture of what happens behind the scenes because he isn't as interested in the cold hard facts, he isn't afraid of insulting anyone or coming off as rude or insane.
I'd love to be a gonzo journalist. I could yell at who I'd want, make fun of who I'd want, and talk about getting drunk and living life instead of quoting officials and statistics. Bring the story to the people how I saw it. Talking about getting drunk at the Kentucky Derby like Thompson sounds a lot more livelier than difficulties with the new Obamacare website.
But as much as I'd love it, I'd loathe it too. So much freedom would make me reckless. Right now, the rebel in me wants to be a gonzo journalist, but keeping ethics in mind and what it means to serve the people, I know it would be a completely different method I would not be prepared for. At least, not prepared to fulfill my role as an ethical journalist.
Thompson's writing is great, and he definitely paints a picture of the Derby. In a sense, he balances out his insults to the crowds of "beasts" by making himself up to be a rude, drunken idiot. But what would Thompson's account mean to a family man who sees the Derby every year? Or some foreign visitor looking to "experience" American life? Or any of the other countless people who would wonder why Thompson is so angry and why all these people are so ugly?
When I'm 50, and all I care about is my dog and what kind of whiskey I should mix with my coffee, then I think I could handle being a gonzo journalist.
I think that it would be both very intimidating for me personally but also very attractive to be a 'gonzo' journalist. On one hand, I am an introvert and I don't really have the most conventional relationship with other people. It would be difficult for me to 'go native' as Thompson describes.
On the other hand, there's no reason to say that all 'gonzo' journalists have to cover the same facets of culture. I could see myself, not at the Kentucky Derby, but at a music festival, at ComicCon, at a midnight release of something high-budget and nerdy. I could connect with Thompson's accounts of rolling waves of drunks, halls slick with vomit... only it wasn't whiskey-drinking race fans, but undergrads with kegs, dressed like stormtroopers.
I think that being a gonzo journalist is something that is attractive, but probably less reliable, less healthy, than being conventional. Sure, the experience sounds fun. But after reading Thompson's piece I can't imagine doing that multiple times a month. It sounds to me like eating cake. Great, on an occasion. But when it would be my job to eat cake after cake after cake, I feel I would get sick of it very quickly.
I would really enjoy being a gonzo journalist because I think obtaining the information through my own experiences and then supplying that information to the reader through a first person narrative would both be enjoyable. Allowing a story to lack objectivity by placing yourself in the piece and describing the situations and facts from a very conscious, individual view would not only be freeing to write, for there would be no limitations that are present in “typical” journalism, but would also be enjoyable for the reader to read because they are not only learning, but connecting, with someone or something. In Thompson’s piece, he balances simple word choices with the perfect about of description to not weigh down the subject, but artfully place the reader there. I think this equilibrium would be the hardest part of being a gonzo journalist for me. In most cases, journalism can be confined to a template, where things such as inverted triangle and nut graphs are present and have purpose. With such an abstract organization, you need to be aware of where certain elements of the story may begin to bog down the piece if they are focused on too much. In Thompson’s case, the use of diction and conversation aids in creating the scene and illustrating what type of people he is interacting with, but this may not work in all stories.
I would like to be a gonzo journalist. I think writing without objectivity and in a first-person narrative would be fun to do because it allows the writer to include some their personal feelings into their writing.
Reading Hunter S. Thomson’s piece about the Kentucky Derby further demonstrated why I’d like to be a gonzo journalist. Throughout the piece he described exactly what he saw the he saw it, and told the reader exactly what he thought about it. This must be a fun thing for a journalist to do because it allows them to say what is really on their mind. I’d love to have that freedom because I’m sure everyone wants to have his or her opinion heard.
I would enjoy "gonzo" journalism because it gives so much freedom to how and what you can write about. In traditional journalism you are assigned a story and that is what you write, but in real life often times the more interesting story is happening on the sidelines. I believe this type of journalism serves a more timeless need. It is a record of how people are. If this were actually written about the derby we would not be reading it today. It wouldn't have been read even a week after it was written. "Gonzo" journalism is a study of people, of a place it is not a record of something "news worthy", it is anthropology. The reason I would really enjoy it is because I am more captivated by the little side action than the main event. Nothing can beat spontaneity and nothing can beat human nature.
Absolutely. The whole flow-of-consciousness aspect of gonzo journalism really appeals to me. I think that using your personal creative lens to report works, as long as you explain the lens to the reader, which Hunter S. Thompson does by acknowledging his drug use and explaining that he had a relative institutionalized on the same day of the race.
The thing about Thompson though, is that he retains so much of his experience despite his massive drug use. Not everyone can galavant around thousands of people while tripping on acid comfortably, let alone while on the job. He has a ridiculously strong constitution, which also shows in his tone. While I envy his ability to concentrate all of his experiences into a legible work while under the influence, I don't think I'd be capable of doing so...I'd probably just bug out.
That's a huge part of gonzo journalism too, I think...using substances, creativity, or some other mental device to explain what makes your experience unique and how that elucidates your point. So I would love to be a gonzo journalist but I'd definitely need to increase my chemical tolerance before embarking on a similar assignment.
I would love to be a gonzo journalist. This type of journalism appeals to me because it is so honest and real. The way that Thompson creates the scene is much more accurate in my mind then the way in which most journalists would have gone about writing the scene. The way he speaks is the way my mind would wonder about the scene before me just as his did. Do we ever learn about the scores or the players? It is all about the people and how they are much more interesting to watch then the horses on the track. The horse race is actually entirely based on the crowd. His use of drugs makes the entire thing all the more intense and exciting to follow. His uninhibited way of speech differs from many journalists today who seem to be very conscious of being politically correct or something close to it. Gonzo journalism in my opinion forces those to pay attention who would ordinarily read through the content without feeling, or only to record the results in their mind and continue on to the news of the day.
I would like to be a "gonzo" journalist. Reporting through experience and personal perception makes a piece much more interesting and timeless than it would be as a typical news articles. Gonzo journalism is able to capture the author's character as well as portray the time in which it was written through the character's interactions with others and his/her response to those interactions. Essentially, the journalist takes the stage in a gonzo piece and it becomes more of a character study than reporting. Thompson is able to pour himself on the page in a maniac frenzy that is so much more than what he is covering. Opening up and allowing that to happen must be extremely liberating, which is why I'd be excited to try it.
Being a gonzo journalist would be fascinating because you wouldn’t be forced to abide by the journalistic rules of objectivity. Similar to what Anthony said, I like how reporting in a “gonzo” style takes you from being just a reporter and allows you to be a character within the story. Being a gonzo journalist also lets you take more risks with your writing- you are essentially allowed to insult your audience, though it really ought to be truthful. Thompson called everyone who attended the Kentucky Derby alcoholics, and said that by the end of his time there, they would be vomiting and peeing on one another from inebriation and insanity brought on by the chaotic environment. Of course that is entertaining to read, but it is also going to piss off a sizeable demographic of people, whether that is Kentuckians or horseracing enthusiasts or both. I think it would be quite liberating to write in this style, but I know that I would have trouble publishing something that is as authoritatively written and reported as this article, regardless of how truthful it is. At the end of the day, I would choose objectivity. But being a gonzo reporter every once in a while would definitely add some adventure to my writing.
While I can appreciate a great piece of writing and what is without a doubt an enthusiastic, original approach to storytelling, I don't think I'd really want to be a Gonzo journalist.
Within traditional journalistic prose there's a power that's maybe a bit more understated than the flamboyant humor in the Gonzo-style, but it's still amazing. I happen to think it's not that hard to deliver emotions and entertainment when you're working with a larger than life caricature of yourself and a shameless arsenal of language. To do the same thing and deliver the same feelings without all the verbal pomp is more impressive to me.
And although I want "Mr. Tambourine Man" playing at my funeral as my ashes are shot out of fist-shaped cannons, I don't think I could handle a salt shaker of cocaine.
Being a gonzo journalist is very tempting. It's appealing because it's the type of reporting that allows you to put yourself in your story. With traditional reporting, you do not include yourself in the story, you don't make mention of yourself and you don't insert your opinions, beliefs, thoughts or feelings. There's no editorializing. But with gonzo journalism, your own emotions can become just as important as the objective facts you would report in a traditional article. In gonzo journalism, there isn't a pressure to abide to objectivity. You don't need to hide the way you feel — in some ways, concealing that would be lying. It can also make for a much more entertaining piece, reads more like a short story than an article. i completely understand why people would want to be a gonzo journalist, i would too. But i feel like it might be easy for some writers to take the freedom they think they have, and center the story too much around themselves..that makes for a boring, self indulgent story that no one will want to read.
I would absolutely love being a gonzo journalist apposed to being a traditional journalist. I think this mainly stems from the fact that I prefer writing fiction and creative pieces rather than journalistic pieces. The ability to insert yourself and your opinion into a work of journalism is just too appealing to pass up. I do think one would need to be careful with how crazy he or she goes with that freedom...like calling a woman a "barren vagina" is probably too far. On the flip side, I think there is something very real about the motions and feelings the writer is able to convey which can make the story about so much more than the mere actions he or she is reporting on. You also run the risk of becoming extremely egocentric and turning it into something closer to a memoir,and the problem with that is that...well, no body cares. everyone has a life, what makes you so special? Like any writing, it is a craft that one would need to practice, but its not a craft I'd mind devoting some time to perfect.
14 comments:
I think I would enjoy being a "gonzo" journalist. Something that has always bothered me about news media, wether it be TV or print, is the impersonal way content tends to be delivered. This has always given me the feeling that I am being fed bullshit and is largely the reason I stay away from most news on TV.
"Gonzo" journalism abandons the practice of eliminating all objectivity from a story and incorporates the author's own voice and presence. Reading Hunter S. Thompson's piece about the action surrounding the Kentucky Derby would not have been nearly as interesting if it had been written by some non-objective reporter because it would lack Thompson's wildly entertaining personality. His "tell it like it is" style of writing creates a more revealing picture of what happens behind the scenes because he isn't as interested in the cold hard facts, he isn't afraid of insulting anyone or coming off as rude or insane.
I'd love to be a gonzo journalist. I could yell at who I'd want, make fun of who I'd want, and talk about getting drunk and living life instead of quoting officials and statistics. Bring the story to the people how I saw it. Talking about getting drunk at the Kentucky Derby like Thompson sounds a lot more livelier than difficulties with the new Obamacare website.
But as much as I'd love it, I'd loathe it too. So much freedom would make me reckless. Right now, the rebel in me wants to be a gonzo journalist, but keeping ethics in mind and what it means to serve the people, I know it would be a completely different method I would not be prepared for. At least, not prepared to fulfill my role as an ethical journalist.
Thompson's writing is great, and he definitely paints a picture of the Derby. In a sense, he balances out his insults to the crowds of "beasts" by making himself up to be a rude, drunken idiot. But what would Thompson's account mean to a family man who sees the Derby every year? Or some foreign visitor looking to "experience" American life? Or any of the other countless people who would wonder why Thompson is so angry and why all these people are so ugly?
When I'm 50, and all I care about is my dog and what kind of whiskey I should mix with my coffee, then I think I could handle being a gonzo journalist.
I think that it would be both very intimidating for me personally but also very attractive to be a 'gonzo' journalist. On one hand, I am an introvert and I don't really have the most conventional relationship with other people. It would be difficult for me to 'go native' as Thompson describes.
On the other hand, there's no reason to say that all 'gonzo' journalists have to cover the same facets of culture. I could see myself, not at the Kentucky Derby, but at a music festival, at ComicCon, at a midnight release of something high-budget and nerdy. I could connect with Thompson's accounts of rolling waves of drunks, halls slick with vomit... only it wasn't whiskey-drinking race fans, but undergrads with kegs, dressed like stormtroopers.
I think that being a gonzo journalist is something that is attractive, but probably less reliable, less healthy, than being conventional. Sure, the experience sounds fun. But after reading Thompson's piece I can't imagine doing that multiple times a month. It sounds to me like eating cake. Great, on an occasion. But when it would be my job to eat cake after cake after cake, I feel I would get sick of it very quickly.
I would really enjoy being a gonzo journalist because I think obtaining the information through my own experiences and then supplying that information to the reader through a first person narrative would both be enjoyable. Allowing a story to lack objectivity by placing yourself in the piece and describing the situations and facts from a very conscious, individual view would not only be freeing to write, for there would be no limitations that are present in “typical” journalism, but would also be enjoyable for the reader to read because they are not only learning, but connecting, with someone or something. In Thompson’s piece, he balances simple word choices with the perfect about of description to not weigh down the subject, but artfully place the reader there. I think this equilibrium would be the hardest part of being a gonzo journalist for me. In most cases, journalism can be confined to a template, where things such as inverted triangle and nut graphs are present and have purpose. With such an abstract organization, you need to be aware of where certain elements of the story may begin to bog down the piece if they are focused on too much. In Thompson’s case, the use of diction and conversation aids in creating the scene and illustrating what type of people he is interacting with, but this may not work in all stories.
I would like to be a gonzo journalist. I think writing without objectivity and in a first-person narrative would be fun to do because it allows the writer to include some their personal feelings into their writing.
Reading Hunter S. Thomson’s piece about the Kentucky Derby further demonstrated why I’d like to be a gonzo journalist. Throughout the piece he described exactly what he saw the he saw it, and told the reader exactly what he thought about it. This must be a fun thing for a journalist to do because it allows them to say what is really on their mind. I’d love to have that freedom because I’m sure everyone wants to have his or her opinion heard.
I would enjoy "gonzo" journalism because it gives so much freedom to how and what you can write about. In traditional journalism you are assigned a story and that is what you write, but in real life often times the more interesting story is happening on the sidelines. I believe this type of journalism serves a more timeless need. It is a record of how people are. If this were actually written about the derby we would not be reading it today. It wouldn't have been read even a week after it was written. "Gonzo" journalism is a study of people, of a place it is not a record of something "news worthy", it is anthropology. The reason I would really enjoy it is because I am more captivated by the little side action than the main event. Nothing can beat spontaneity and nothing can beat human nature.
Absolutely. The whole flow-of-consciousness aspect of gonzo journalism really appeals to me. I think that using your personal creative lens to report works, as long as you explain the lens to the reader, which Hunter S. Thompson does by acknowledging his drug use and explaining that he had a relative institutionalized on the same day of the race.
The thing about Thompson though, is that he retains so much of his experience despite his massive drug use. Not everyone can galavant around thousands of people while tripping on acid comfortably, let alone while on the job. He has a ridiculously strong constitution, which also shows in his tone. While I envy his ability to concentrate all of his experiences into a legible work while under the influence, I don't think I'd be capable of doing so...I'd probably just bug out.
That's a huge part of gonzo journalism too, I think...using substances, creativity, or some other mental device to explain what makes your experience unique and how that elucidates your point. So I would love to be a gonzo journalist but I'd definitely need to increase my chemical tolerance before embarking on a similar assignment.
I would love to be a gonzo journalist. This type of journalism appeals to me because it is so honest and real. The way that Thompson creates the scene is much more accurate in my mind then the way in which most journalists would have gone about writing the scene. The way he speaks is the way my mind would wonder about the scene before me just as his did. Do we ever learn about the scores or the players? It is all about the people and how they are much more interesting to watch then the horses on the track. The horse race is actually entirely based on the crowd. His use of drugs makes the entire thing all the more intense and exciting to follow. His uninhibited way of speech differs from many journalists today who seem to be very conscious of being politically correct or something close to it. Gonzo journalism in my opinion forces those to pay attention who would ordinarily read through the content without feeling, or only to record the results in their mind and continue on to the news of the day.
I would like to be a "gonzo" journalist. Reporting through experience and personal perception makes a piece much more interesting and timeless than it would be as a typical news articles. Gonzo journalism is able to capture the author's character as well as portray the time in which it was written through the character's interactions with others and his/her response to those interactions. Essentially, the journalist takes the stage in a gonzo piece and it becomes more of a character study than reporting. Thompson is able to pour himself on the page in a maniac frenzy that is so much more than what he is covering. Opening up and allowing that to happen must be extremely liberating, which is why I'd be excited to try it.
Being a gonzo journalist would be fascinating because you wouldn’t be forced to abide by the journalistic rules of objectivity. Similar to what Anthony said, I like how reporting in a “gonzo” style takes you from being just a reporter and allows you to be a character within the story. Being a gonzo journalist also lets you take more risks with your writing- you are essentially allowed to insult your audience, though it really ought to be truthful. Thompson called everyone who attended the Kentucky Derby alcoholics, and said that by the end of his time there, they would be vomiting and peeing on one another from inebriation and insanity brought on by the chaotic environment. Of course that is entertaining to read, but it is also going to piss off a sizeable demographic of people, whether that is Kentuckians or horseracing enthusiasts or both. I think it would be quite liberating to write in this style, but I know that I would have trouble publishing something that is as authoritatively written and reported as this article, regardless of how truthful it is. At the end of the day, I would choose objectivity. But being a gonzo reporter every once in a while would definitely add some adventure to my writing.
While I can appreciate a great piece of writing and what is without a doubt an enthusiastic, original approach to storytelling, I don't think I'd really want to be a Gonzo journalist.
Within traditional journalistic prose there's a power that's maybe a bit more understated than the flamboyant humor in the Gonzo-style, but it's still amazing. I happen to think it's not that hard to deliver emotions and entertainment when you're working with a larger than life caricature of yourself and a shameless arsenal of language. To do the same thing and deliver the same feelings without all the verbal pomp is more impressive to me.
And although I want "Mr. Tambourine Man" playing at my funeral as my ashes are shot out of fist-shaped cannons, I don't think I could handle a salt shaker of cocaine.
Being a gonzo journalist is very tempting. It's appealing because it's the type of reporting that allows you to put yourself in your story. With traditional reporting, you do not include yourself in the story, you don't make mention of yourself and you don't insert your opinions, beliefs, thoughts or feelings. There's no editorializing. But with gonzo journalism, your own emotions can become just as important as the objective facts you would report in a traditional article. In gonzo journalism, there isn't a pressure to abide to objectivity. You don't need to hide the way you feel — in some ways, concealing that would be lying. It can also make for a much more entertaining piece, reads more like a short story than an article. i completely understand why people would want to be a gonzo journalist, i would too. But i feel like it might be easy for some writers to take the freedom they think they have, and center the story too much around themselves..that makes for a boring, self indulgent story that no one will want to read.
I would absolutely love being a gonzo journalist apposed to being a traditional journalist. I think this mainly stems from the fact that I prefer writing fiction and creative pieces rather than journalistic pieces. The ability to insert yourself and your opinion into a work of journalism is just too appealing to pass up. I do think one would need to be careful with how crazy he or she goes with that freedom...like calling a woman a "barren vagina" is probably too far. On the flip side, I think there is something very real about the motions and feelings the writer is able to convey which can make the story about so much more than the mere actions he or she is reporting on. You also run the risk of becoming extremely egocentric and turning it into something closer to a memoir,and the problem with that is that...well, no body cares. everyone has a life, what makes you so special? Like any writing, it is a craft that one would need to practice, but its not a craft I'd mind devoting some time to perfect.
To get more relevant information visit here Kentucky Derby
Post a Comment