Reading Response Week 2: Anthropological Journalism

I enjoyed Mark Kramer’s article, “Breakable Rules for Literary Journalists,” especially because he lists the rules one at a time in easy-to-see italics. Frankly, his piece reads like a guide to an anthropological text, study, and research methodology. For example, “immerse [yourself] in subjects’ worlds and in background research,” “write from a disengaged and mobile stance,” and “write mostly about routine events” are principles stressed in introductory anthropology and sociology classes. Kramer speaks about “reporting” – a term designated for journalists – and “fieldwork” – a term utilized most frequently by anthropologists and sociologists – synonymously. I suppose, at its core, literary journalism consists of the narration of sociological events or trends. So what’s the difference; in literary journalism the author is creatively expressing the common, routine events around him or her, rather than scientifically narrating scenes or events in black and white, factual terminology? Are they different because journalists use more of a voice, and integrate their personality into a piece? Personally, I enjoy a creatively written newspaper or magazine article to the oftentimes drab, robotic voice of anthropological and sociological studies. Maybe that’s the difference – journalists are writing for an audience composed of different people who don’t know all the scientific terminology, while anthropologists and sociologists are writing for an audience of like-minded, academics who have a detailed understanding of the subject at hand.