Wall Street Journal, on its front page, has a column named "What's News", which can be read as "Let me tell you what you need to know."

 

Looking back, my understanding of the word "news", not very long ago, was still NEWs and North+East+West+South. Certainly, I was able to discuss "relevance", "significance", "draft of history" things like that long ago, when I thought I did know what the word means. However, it's not until very recently, after joining the current organization, after more than 1 1/2 year's involvement in media industry, that I began to taste the real meaning of the word (in the western context).

 

This is the third time that my article was "bounced back" from the desk, after taking on the job, and they were all about choosing what to put at the top of the article, about structure. I used to think that structure was something that I was good at, but now I realzie the point is not really about the entire picture, but that slim piece of cream above all.

 

When the editor asked "What is the news?", they were actually asking "What do you plan to tell the readers?" And, THIS IS PURELY SUBJECTIVE.

 

Remember, no news is objective.

 

I never thought that news can be so objective. Among all the facts that you include in a certain article, it is you, the writer of the story, that decides what to put at the top. For a story about China's going to import GM corn, to put government's giving permits to companies or the first shipping of the corn is coming at the top is a question. For a story about CCA closed a talk with its US counterparts to revise contracts, local firms going to use new contracts and the negociation between the two party has closed are among the choices of a lead.

 

After building up the entire picture of foreign investment in local xx processing industry, what to begin with? After all, the topic isn't the lead to begin with. It's still "What do you really want to say?"

 

Suddenly, the previous confusions settled. I finally began to understand why sb said, "It's there, but one needs to sort it out. It's a little bit vague." and "What's the difference between what you write (as an opinion piece) and an ordinary one."

 

So, what is the criteria for the choice?

 

I'm still not 100% sure, but the following are some of the keys: simplicity, clear, juicy, exotic.

 

This, unfortunately, will twist the real world, creating a pseudo-environment in people's minds.

 

An over-emphasis on market-driven and relavance will amplify the significance of certain events arbitrarily, and when you decide not to run the story at all, it under-estimates its relavance.

 

Some journalists, especially overseas, have been complaining the boring two conferences. I'm not really sure what they're looking for, but I do know that huge amount of information created by local media has become a burden for some while junk for others.

 

So, what is the thing that really matters and how can you know?

 

By now, I realize that my nonsense is again going to result in nihilism, and far from my intention to reflect upon my journalistic judgments and providing an insight on media for my friends.

 

In the past few years, top executives of big tradition media -- print, radio, and broadcast -- often say "Let's listen to what our readers want/need." to their employees, amid an aggressive advancement of digital media. Is it something that merely intends to cheat the audiences and the investors in the media?