I sometimes wonder why my interest in journalism lost its spirited momentum, but looking deeper, it's not too difficult to understand.

While I never truly pictured myself as the happily burnt-out reporter, chasing stories, getting the scoop, and bringing awareness to audiences in a whirlwind of coffee and cigarettes, I did envisage being somewhat of a great writer with truthful stories and connection to the world.

Maybe that's just my cliche parallel of a Carrie Bradshaw-style journalist (I don't even smoke) but either way... I didn't think too much about the career aspect at all.

All I did know, when I was flicking through the thick pages of university brochures and their endless catalogues of courses, was that I enjoyed writing — in fact, I was pretty good at it, and should probably settle on something that I could tolerate for 4 years if not turn into a career I'd be happy making money from for the rest of my life.

The ascension to Multi-Media Journalism... and the downfall

Journalism, or more specifically, the Multimedia Journalism course I opted for, felt like choosing a corridor with a hundred different doors of opportunity at the end. It was choosing a career with a whole spectrum of media prospects and knowing I'd be good at most aspects of it.

The course didn't just cover traditional newspapers and reporting, but also branched into modern realms: everything from online and blogging, print magazines and features, radio and broadcast, to television and documentary.

I was trained in a multitude of skills spanning video and audio editing, filming and camerawork, article and feature writing, voice coaching and presentation, public affairs and media law... basically the whole package, jam-packed with media efficiency.

As I progressed through the four years of education, however, the novelty of the mainstream media and its ideals started to wear off.

What used to be a bubble of admiration, awe, and sheer motivation to further my career in that space started to dwindle and fade like a dim light.

Rage-bait made me Rage-quit

While the internet wasn't new at the time I went to university, it was around the time that social media had exploded and felt like a real cornerstone of society, rampant with updates (or else, you were a hermit).

Facebook, Instagram, and other interactive apps had overtaken the online sphere, and news outlets and magazines noticed their print distribution numbers falling when traditional readers also began opting to consume material online.

This pattern of consuming also skyrocketed to the likes of celebrity, entertainment, and online gossip panels, and tabloids that were historically contained to printed newspapers started gaining even more traction with their sensationalism.

If you haven't heard of the British press and media frenzies, it's a wholeee other can of worms (and a responsible chunk of my finalised journalistic dissertation at the end of the degree, where I investigated even further into celebrity, sexism, and media attention).

Some of the examples of repulsive media witch-hunts conducted by the 90-00s British press involve anything from 'skinny' or 'heroin chic' and anorexia culture, to sheer scrutiny across tabloids of A-list celebrities or footballer's wives, and even to the excessive harassment of Princess Diana, whom we all remember being hounded by the press — arguably, the horrifying catalyst in her fateful death.

Then along came the barrage of click-bait and rage-bait, where facts were often deliberately twisted or misconstrued for a more gripping or scandalous narrative.

Whether it was to inflame and get people gossiping, commenting, or just to stir emotion negatively, a rise in 'fake news' also took off, owing many stories to that holy grail, scot-free quote "an anonymous source claims" — the majority of these sources diabolically conjured from the very same newsdesk printing the "story", with zero way to prove validity.

In summary, many mainstream media outlets quickly figured out that scandals, sex, and shock ALWAYS sold.

I couldn't, and didn't want to, fuel or contribute any further to that.

'In' and 'Of' Public Interest in Journalism

In journalism classes, we were also taught the distinct difference between 'in the public interest' and 'of public interest', meaning we had a specific code to differentiate what the public needed to know, or perhaps wanted to know.

Needing to know, and being 'IN the public interest', was unearthing stories often with a negative scope, bringing forth the truth regardless and shining light into dark corners, secretive deceit or insincere natures.

It would often involve justice, righting wrongs, exposing truth, and other misleading topics that the public may not have knowledge of, or have need for their current lens to be altered.

Investigative journalism often was the pinnacle of such writing, needing heavy digging and air-tight protocol with ethics and the means to obtain information for exposure.

Of the public interest catered more to gossip narratives, and stories that were less tasking or with reduced severity in its topics. It covered a much wider range of topics and had minimal heat or stress.

A good example of debate was morals and ethics — an A-list celebrity having an affair was not regarded as in the public interest, because whilst the act is immoral, it is not of urgent need nor imminent information that could change lives or abstractly amend public vision.

It also barely had any direct connection to the public at all, which was another indicator.

A minor bank, however, that operates with due diligence but is found guilty of consumer malpractice in its operation would have inherent need for public knowledge.

One factor I used to truly admire about the media was how the public seemed to be, were positioned to be, the centre of it all.

The media served the public, and everything in its operation was of loyalty and dedication to the people.

Somewhere along the way, that changed into a monopoly of money (as things often do in a capitalist society) and the media began serving themselves, selling out to dish any and all 'content' — no matter the authenticity, and often with the main intention of attracting clicks, to bring advertisers, to bring $$$, and round the cycle churns.

Like a giant media honeytrap, nowadays you see sensationalist headlines or narratives deliberately altered, simple spellcheck abandoned in the hopes you'll comment to correct it, where 'clout' sits at the junction of sellable and not shamed, and your emotions and opinions are prodded and poked for reaction like circus animals in jest, all for monetary or corporation gain.

The pipeline of the people receiving truthful media has been ashamedly intercepted and interrupted, with no real outlook of when it might — if ever — return.

Artificial vs. Authentic?

It's also ironic that a decade ago, we were having the same issue in the online sphere and media of 'artificiality', but in a completely different context.

Nowadays, artificial vs. authentic isn't about what lies a human may have fabricated or concocted for clicks — it's whether a human has even written it at all.

It pains me, if not shocks me to say that I sometimes miss that 'fabricated' era. Purely for the fact that despite it all, when compared to now, at least you knew a human was involved, and actually wrote whatever was printed or posted.

Which brings me to my second major arc in becoming disillusioned, and leaning more into my own authentic writing... I want to write organically, and not have work generated from a machine (despite how informative, well-spoken, or trained-to-sound-like-you it might appear).

I believe diving into creativity authentically is a much-needed trait, outlet, and necessity in human nature, not to mention an asset for human health in general. I still wish to consume words written from humans to humans, but words of truth, care, genuineness, and importance.

Carving my own creative path

What that looks like for me, is a deeper turn inwards to my own authenticity and creativity.

While I might not be on the frontlines of investigative, independent journalism (because that's often only where you can trust now for the truth), I still feel a strong connection to writing and communicating with others through the written word.

A two-way relationship, if you will. If one imagines the receipt of news was one-sided (the media gifting the information to the people as a one-time, one-way transaction), then I envisage my writing to be somewhat deeper.

If it resonates with somebody, evokes emotion or generates thoughts, if it offers a feel of inclusion or relatability, then that automatically provides the reader with types of emotion that simple facts ever could.

An opposite effect to click-bait or rage-bait, producing negativity or deliberately prodding for negative reactions — I want to help stir any positive, safe ones.

And what that means to me is, the relativity somebody finds through my words can create some kind of connection back to me that simple news cannot.

Writing has helped me in many situations, mentally and emotionally. In my personal circumstances, it has sometimes helped keep me grounded — also returning me to my childhood passion, as I loved to write and create things like imaginative stories when I was younger too.

All this to say, writtenbyfe may have been a long time coming, but it was only a matter of time before I succumbed again to the written word. And sticking to my guns of organic, authentic, and substance-worthy content, I'll continue to produce in this light and carve my own path with it as daringly and as freely as I can.

If you're interested in joining my newsletter for an insight into thoughtful and strategic writing, audience connection, and authenticity tips, you've got the invite here.

Keep carving your pathway,

-fe