Lately I’ve been thinking about how much of yourself it is appropriate to put into a piece of journalism. As an arrogant amateur at university I wrote about myself constantly, knocking out a column every issue. My ultimate ambition is to have my own column in the Charlie Brooker/Tim Dowling/Marina Hyde vain (yep, shameless Guardianista).
After being told on one of my earliest work experience to cut the froth (I’m a cappuccino of a person), I am making a concerted effort to take the word ‘I’ out of my pieces. One of my tutors is insistent that using the word ‘I’ in any piece is a crime that should be punishable by death. However, after my first writing class with doyenne of women’s magazines Marcelle D’Argy Smith, the focus was on ‘I’ as honest and confessional, the writer exposing themselves completely to the scrutiny of their reader.
I personally enjoy reading personal comment pieces that use the first person shamelessly; I like being invited into the author’s psyche. But I know others find them self-indulgent and self-obsessed.
What I do object to is when interviewers focus more on themselves than their subject. When Debra Ross, a writer I normally like, interviewed Anne Marie Duff a couple of years ago, she spent most of the article detailing her huge crush of Duff’s husband (the admittedly lovely) James McAvoy. It was all a bit embarrassing. However, I do think that the occasional ‘I’ and comment on how the interviewee interacts with the interviewer on a personal level is forgivable.
So what’s the general consensus: how much ‘I’ should there be in good journalism?
Student Journalist, Magazine Fancier 
Hmm, I wonder if anyone’s ever written a personal blog without using the word I?
Another thing is that some people like self-obsessed journalists – Mr Brooker being one example. Sometimes they manage to capture a whole audience’s thoughts through their own self-indulgent rants which means that people can express their thoughts vicariously through those articles, either by passing the article on or just go on happily through the world knowing that someone else agrees with their view on life.
The ‘I’ is also a good device to spark debate and get more readers for your column, essential for media in the current tough times.
I think it’s a bit chicken/egg, as I don’t want to hear an interviewer blab on about themselves unless I’m familiar with them and their style…but how do you get to know the interviewer unless they introduce themselves through their articles?
As comment is inherently based in the author’s opinions, it’s difficult to complain about getting personal unless it’s boring and rubbish (in which case you would probably find fault regardless of the style attempted).
Surely a good rule of thumb is what the article is about. If it’s all about an individual subject, nobody cares how your train journey to meet them was; if you’re trying to retrace the steps of Jack Kerouac or something, then lots of Is is fine.
Lastly, before my reply becomes longer than the blog, I must add that student journalism is the exception, where ‘I’ should never be used outside of comment. Nobody wants to hear about students, especially not other students.
“I” is a troubling one – it totally depends on the tone and the charm of the writer – and his topic – Charlie Brooker, for example, is a total pussycat in real life, but his columns make him out to be a complete wanker.
Is ‘he’ actually saying anything? Is it all just an act?
That aside there are many ways to avoid ‘I’s – I’d argue that as it’s a column, the I is implied – anything else: features, reviews, whatever… absolutely not.