the journalistic undertaking

involves a whoooole lotta hustling.
it sucks.
in fact, it's in a way counterintuitive to journalism itself, which is all about seeing things as they are and representing truth. hustling, networking, climbing a ladder, clawing past others, being first: all about bullshit. i'm not sure if i have it in me -- or if i want to. but then again who does? i suppose you put your conscience aside and play the game if you want it badly enough.

but then again what is "it," or what is "it" as i'm conceiving it to be? the readings in this month's Harper's -- about the overwhelming slums and cocaine trade in brazil, government corruption in hungary, about nagasaki and atomic bombs -- are kind of devastating, and then you turn to the Sunday Times Magazine, with its debut of "The Key" property magazine and movies to watch for, art reviews and shopping guides. none of it feels real.

i'm not saying that one kind of journalism is better than another, but that the purpose of most of it seems simply to reassure us that things are "normal" over here in the comfortable rooms where we're reading it. in other words, the subtext of any story is that if someone -- the journalist -- has the time and energy to hustle and report and write the story, and is actually making a living by providing it for you and me to read, and moreover has a glossy, nicely designed framework in which to present it, then things must be okay. and that's not even mentioning the "reality" reported in the stories themselves...it all feels like an elaborate puppet show ruse put on to maintain the appearance that the world is in order for us, when i believe the true reality is that things, everything, can come apart at any moment. there's obviously no grand mastermind making it happen, but i do believe that is the cumulative effect, and i know i'm not the first person to have said so.

are we, or rather am i prepared to engage in this undertaking as a journalist? it's something worth thinking about.