When discussing alternative forms, I immediately questioned if the various genres of literature count as peace journalism.
There is a river of writers throughout history who are considered the ultimate capturers of their time, something we would call journalists today, but they did not write in the realm of hard facts and objective observations.
They immersed themselves and their writings in the world around them, which still logged the issues, news, movements, characters and more of their time. All of which are the main focus points of news articles today.
What separates the traditional journalist from a creative writer is the validity of facts or sources.
Journalists are restricted to quantitative reporting with qualitative qualities to carry the story. It is more about specific quotes or figures or events, whereas creative writers focus on the message and mold whatever crisp descriptions it takes to get the point across to the reader.
A few personalities of our trip captured this distinction between the two but considered each completely equal in value and importance.
Malinda Seneviratne said truth is malleable. There is no real truth, because each side of every story has their own version of it. It’s all true, but it’s usually never the same.
He said media can be irrelevant sometimes, because locals know what happened. They don’t need the news recap, because they are the living stories of what actually occurred.
It’s essential to reach out to those who lived the experience being reported and to ask them questions that will encourage them to share their thoughts and memories in a story narrative. No, their answers won’t be punctual to facts, but is that necessary to capture whatever happened in their human experience?
This is a direct relation to peace journalism. The reporter must work outside the realm of authorities and typical sources and immerse in the stories and strands of the locals.
Seneviratne said the challenge in this type of writing is it demands the writer to stay true to the voice telling the story. This style requires an empathy and understanding of the interviewee yet a distance to capture their story within the context and in a way which only highlights their message, their memories and their voice.
Jean Arasanayagam mentioned the importance of distance in a writer also. She said to be outside of an experience allows the writer to note the situation then capture those moments for eternity.
This creative conversion of enfacement into literature she said must be shared.
She also said, however, the creative mind sculpts distortions. This is where the division between creative journalism and traditional journalism is evident.
Creative writers of all genres capture scenes by playing off of a specific moment or observation then memory or imagination fills in the rest of the background. This would not be considered factual for reporting, however, it is still an effective way to immerse a reader in the topic at hand.
Creative literary genres are also just as susceptible to scrutiny and criticism for their topics as journalism articles are.
Many fiction writers in Turkey have been sued for their messages and unveiling of silenced issues. If writers who blatantly claim to be creating stories from the mind not from reporting are accused, then it’s obvious the message is just as controversial no matter what style it is written.
Writers of all platforms face criticism and even discrimination. Turkish women writers, for example, are rarely translated or sold in many bookstores. Their work is captivating and pioneering in the field of literature, yet they are censored or not recognized.
If the voices of fiction are being threatened, then the writing obviously presents a challenge to some sector of society.
Does challenging or revealing particular issues through writing sound like what you read in the newspaper or online? Could the various platforms of writing overlap or are they to remain as distinct? The real question is do readers value one over the other, or is it just a matter of preferance.
There is a river of writers throughout history who are considered the ultimate capturers of their time, something we would call journalists today, but they did not write in the realm of hard facts and objective observations.
They immersed themselves and their writings in the world around them, which still logged the issues, news, movements, characters and more of their time. All of which are the main focus points of news articles today.
What separates the traditional journalist from a creative writer is the validity of facts or sources.
Journalists are restricted to quantitative reporting with qualitative qualities to carry the story. It is more about specific quotes or figures or events, whereas creative writers focus on the message and mold whatever crisp descriptions it takes to get the point across to the reader.
A few personalities of our trip captured this distinction between the two but considered each completely equal in value and importance.
Malinda Seneviratne said truth is malleable. There is no real truth, because each side of every story has their own version of it. It’s all true, but it’s usually never the same.
He said media can be irrelevant sometimes, because locals know what happened. They don’t need the news recap, because they are the living stories of what actually occurred.
It’s essential to reach out to those who lived the experience being reported and to ask them questions that will encourage them to share their thoughts and memories in a story narrative. No, their answers won’t be punctual to facts, but is that necessary to capture whatever happened in their human experience?
This is a direct relation to peace journalism. The reporter must work outside the realm of authorities and typical sources and immerse in the stories and strands of the locals.
Seneviratne said the challenge in this type of writing is it demands the writer to stay true to the voice telling the story. This style requires an empathy and understanding of the interviewee yet a distance to capture their story within the context and in a way which only highlights their message, their memories and their voice.
Jean Arasanayagam mentioned the importance of distance in a writer also. She said to be outside of an experience allows the writer to note the situation then capture those moments for eternity.
This creative conversion of enfacement into literature she said must be shared.
She also said, however, the creative mind sculpts distortions. This is where the division between creative journalism and traditional journalism is evident.
Creative writers of all genres capture scenes by playing off of a specific moment or observation then memory or imagination fills in the rest of the background. This would not be considered factual for reporting, however, it is still an effective way to immerse a reader in the topic at hand.
Creative literary genres are also just as susceptible to scrutiny and criticism for their topics as journalism articles are.
Many fiction writers in Turkey have been sued for their messages and unveiling of silenced issues. If writers who blatantly claim to be creating stories from the mind not from reporting are accused, then it’s obvious the message is just as controversial no matter what style it is written.
Writers of all platforms face criticism and even discrimination. Turkish women writers, for example, are rarely translated or sold in many bookstores. Their work is captivating and pioneering in the field of literature, yet they are censored or not recognized.
If the voices of fiction are being threatened, then the writing obviously presents a challenge to some sector of society.
Does challenging or revealing particular issues through writing sound like what you read in the newspaper or online? Could the various platforms of writing overlap or are they to remain as distinct? The real question is do readers value one over the other, or is it just a matter of preferance.
RSS Feed
