Faking it in journalism

Not twenty minutes ago, my Print Journalism Practice lecture was completed. The lecture constituted a list of invaluable tips for interviewing as a journalist, such as checking the facts and doing your homework ahead of time.

On the way home, I discussed with everyone's favourite Cambridge native some of the things that weren't mentioned in the lecture that might be useful.

As a music journalist myself, I had one big tip - contextualise what you're doing.

My somewhat cynical tip I've given to other music journos before is that our job is 50% knowing what you're talking about and 50% pretending that you do. But I think maybe that's more accurate than I'd otherwise like to admit.

Yesterday on our way to another lecture, an amusing argument broke out amongst my friends and I over whether Trivium sound like Megadeth.

I am no fan of either band. I listen to plenty of Metallica - though not enough to call myself a fan, my favourite song is 'Mama Said' after all - but never Megadeth. And Trivium I just hated from the few notes of their music I had heard.

However, through my hours of background reading online and in press releases, I know enough about both bands to distinguish between the two without even knowing their music.

Megadeth are icons of thrash, probably second only behind Metallica themselves. They've been around since the 1980s and they still sell respectable amounts of records.

Trivium have existed for about a week and a half, aren't particularly acclaimed and are infamous among most 'real' metal fans for sounding like a rubbish version of Metallica.

I'm not about to kick at Trivium here, nor am I going to defend them, because whether or not the above statement is true is irrelevant. The point is, public opinion is against them.

If I was to write a biography of them in ten years time, the early chapters would involve discussion of how much 'real' metal fans hated them alot of the time.

Megadeth are hugely respected, Trivium are not; Megadeth are original, Trivium are not. They may have some similarities in sound at a basic level - and to the untrained ear - but they are by no means the same group.

Now this may all seem a bit roundabout, but it illustrates my point pretty well. I could contribute to this argument - and indeed write a blog post - despite having virtually no knowledge of either group.

Knowing historical context is vital in music, and not knowing it can make you easily look like an idiot. This is something even mainstream news sources and papers get wrong - such as when E! news managed to refer to Nirvana's Nevermind as their debut album.

So there you have it. My big tip for music - or at least, creative media - journalists; know what you're talking about even if you don't know what you're talking about.