The True Nature of Journalism: Through the eyes of Jon Krakauer

Written by Becca Stine

Colorado College students were uncharacteristically early in anticipation of Jon Krakauer’s talk last Wednesday evening. Upon his visit, Krakauer, one of the nations greatest adventure writers, sparked the question as to what true journalism really entails. To call him a “writer” is a necessity, as Krakauer can be titled neither journalist nor author: he embodies both. Krakauer has created a space that simultaneously sits between and completely encompasses the limits of both a novelist and a journalist.

Throughout his talk Krakauer alluded to his “obsession” with his stories and his subjects, to the point where a brief article could scarcely come close to telling the whole story. To Krakauer, research is the underpinning to every great piece of writing. Only if the research supports the story is the story then worth writing. “Is there a book here or not,” he asks. In this way, he argued, we can begin to understand the building blocks that then mobilize the formation of the story. Krakauer seemed to argue that it is this link between research and the story itself that defines the essence of great journalism. But is that enough? What of detachment? Others might argue that journalism’s defining factor is its objectivity to the subject at hand. Krakauer begs to differ. In Krakauer’s recognition of his “obsession,” he seems to completely reject this rule, and yet he is recognized as one of the most well-regarded and influential journalists in the nation. Samantha Silverman, a first-year at CC, speaks of the impact of Krakauer’s writing. “In Into The Wild I found comfort in being lost, of the lightness of impermanency,” she said. “As a result, I considered my present to be temporary and of little value, as if simply a limbo between adventures. Because of Christopher McCandless, I wholeheartedly believed there was something in and beyond the Rockies waiting for me…He is the reason I moved to Colorado.” What, then, constitutes a good journalist? Is it really possible to ignore our basic human instinct, and therefore, can any journalist truly remain completely objective?

Sue Useem, an American documentary producer and journalist based in Indonesia, shared her view: “For me personally, I can’t see how it’s possible to remain emotionally detached from a story… Especially conflict photographers are the most notoriously detached… But I don’t think it’s true—their emotions guide them to portray the story and take the photos they do.” She seems to recognize this necessity for an obsession as she said, “If you care enough to report on something, your emotions have to be tied up in it, and you can still be totally objective at the same time.” Sue seems to touch on an interesting idea: as humans, we cannot separate ourselves emotionally from that which we care about, and subjectivity is inevitable.

Krakauer, however, spoke of the negative connotations of this emotional connection to a story. He used the example of “Into Thin Air,” the book he wrote after his terrible experience climbing Everest in 1996 during the Mount Everest Disaster, where eight of his companions died. Krakauer talked about a kind of anger that overcame him after the accident, which remained for some time after the book was published. He spoke of how the intensity of this anger and emotion associated with the accident was what allowed him to write the book in just three months. He went on to speak of a kind of regret he experienced after publishing the book, as his intention was to write the truth, and instead he—in his words—”publicly falsified the story.” Krakauer believes that this anger that carried through into his writing brought people to read the story in the opposite way—his fans suddenly wanted to climb Everest, when Jon was attempting to express the issues associated with the mountain as a tourist attraction. Useem shared her perspective on this story: “In the case of Krakauer it’s interesting about how a journalist can actually influence the outcome of a situation. In the story of ‘Into Thin Air,’ the main characters he talks about died so they can’t defend themselves. So I think it’s a good example of acknowledging that even your presence in a situation, when you are trying to be objective, can skew the whole experience into a totally different one than if you weren’t there at all. Objective, that is.” It might be fair to ask, however, that in the absence of anger and emotion, would Krakauer have been able to write a story with the same depth of feeling and conviction? Regardless, this is where Krakauer seems to draw the line, expressing a sense of regret in rushing the publication of the story and letting his anger take control.

“I have people who hate me for what I’ve written about them,” said Krakauer, revealing the way in which often a story is more important than the relationship with the subject—journalism requires a level of sacrifice and risk. Useem stated that the key to successful journalism is “a strong education and critical reasoning skills … so you don’t get overwhelmed by your emotions, and instead can steer them to yours and the stories benefit.” In his ability to beautifully weave fact with emotion to tell a story and share a truth, Krakauer seems to do exactly this.

Listen to “An Evening with Jon Krakauer” below:

catalystnewspaper