What’s I’ve come to realize after more than 20 years in journalism is that you can copy the science of what someone does but you can’t copy the art. The humanity of a journalist is what makes them good. The rest can be mimicked.

Is the journalist really listening to the interview? If so their responses will be authentic. Is the journalist going beyond what they think the story is and providing context?

All of those things make the difference. The “special sauce” is not something that everyone has.

I suspect the same holds for many professions - when people bring their soul to something, when they have a *natural* talent for something, it shows and people feel it.

You can put words on a page, speak into a mic or look into a camera but that’s science and technical skill. (Also important!)

There is the technical skill of knowing the elements of a news article or show segment. But then there is the art of knowing how to conduct the interview, when to weave in information, what your tone is etc. That’s the art.

The dream journalist is one who can do both - combining the right amount of science and art.

The technical skills can largely be taught. The other stuff is not as simple.

Anyway - I’m happy to join any journalism boards seats that need this perspective.