Cited from Peter Rubie’s “The Elements of Narrative Nonfiction: How to Write and Sell the Novel of True Events” on page 46 and 47:
A serious downside to narrative nonfiction journalism is that it can create an atmosphere where emotionally charged anecdotes force the creation of public policy, driven by a political quick-fix mentality that is a knee-jerk emotional response rather than a rationally considered solution to a problem. It’s much easier, for example, for a legislator to vote against a sex offender registration law that he thinks it’s too draconian and challenges constitutional notions of civil liberties if the bill is called a sex offender registration law rather than to say, Megan’s Law. Suddenly, because of the way the story has been reported, the legislator is voting against a victimized little girl and her grieving family, not a potential threat to our constitutional freedoms.
To survive as an effective, open society we need to be continually and accurately informed about our world and about what is happening in it. Today, many seem to either dismiss or forget that journalists were once called the Fourth Estate, unelected, but nevertheless for the most part committed to keeping society honest and equitable by making those in power accountable for their actions through the conscientious reporting of what elected officials did and why they did it. If journalist abrogate their responsibilities through lazy, populist, or overtly biased reporting, it can lead eventually to the madness of endorsing government and corporate propaganda rather than questioning it, enhancing ignorance of issues among the voting population, and, at the extreme end, help destroy the very foundations of democracy by allowing politicians to steal elections through bully tactics.
Thus, should we narrate or not? If yes, to what degree?
