I've always liked the old-school journalism approach. I don't have to take a side on any controversial issue. I get to present various sides. And my goal, as a journalist covering the Bible beat, is to present the strengths and weaknesses of each side - to the extent that readers can't tell what my opinion is. That's easy enough for me to do much of the time because I'm as confused as the next guy, and trusting a lot on Jesus for what I don't understand.
To reconcile conflicting parties, we must have the ability to understand the suffering of both sides. If we take sides, it is impossible to do the work of reconciliation. And humans want to take sides. That is why the situation gets worse and worse. Are there people who are still available to both sides? They need not do much. They need do only one thing: Go to one side and tell all about the suffering endured by the other side, and go to the other side and tell all about the suffering endured by this side. This is our chance for peace. But how many of us are able to do that?
I realized I couldn't be a journalist because I like to take a side, to have an opinion and a point a view; I liked to step across the imaginary boundary of the objective view that the journalist is supposed to have and be involved.
You see, a conflict always begins with an issue - a difference of opinion, an argument. But by the time it turns into a war, the issue doesn't matter anymore, because now it's about one thing and one thing only: how much each side hates the other.
Editorials are, obviously, pieces of opinion journalism. They are not intended to be dispassionate, balanced accountings of a news situation or issue. They present a strong and strongly argued position and do not necessarily present or even take into account the opposing position.
My goal was to show the history of the end of the Cold War through both sides - the U.S. side and the Soviet side. I really felt that especially the Soviet side of the story hadn't been well told because we didn't know.
I had a moment where I left journalism, and I started getting interested in this issue and writing about it, where I felt there was a right side and a wrong side around a lot of these issues relating to education.
In most cases, strengths and weaknesses are two sides of the same coin. A strength in one situation is a weakness in another, yet often the person can't switch gears. It's a very subtle thing to talk about strengths and weaknesses because almost always they're the same thing.
A human being has a lot of sides, like a kind of diversity, so it's like a good side, a bad side, a crazy side, a normal side, like a man-ish side, a woman-ish side.
I always hold out hope. Mediation is an opportunity for each side to present their case, and for us to get back to the table again.
It takes a man a long time to learn all the lessons of all of his mistakes. They say there are two sides to everything. But there is only one side to the stock market; and it is not the bull side or the bear side, but the right side. It took me longer to get that general principle fixed firmly in my mind than it did most of the more technical phases of the game of stock speculation.
The Israel Palestine thing, there are infinite sides to each side, but if we stick to the main sides, everybody's in the same boat and it's maddening to me for people not to understand what's in both their best interest.
Captains realise over a period that if they plan right and understand the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition, luck attaches itself to their side.
For me it's more important that I outline all the facets of a controversial issue and let the reader make up his or her mind. I don't care if readers change their minds, but I would like readers to ask themselves why their opinion is what it is.
I think I present a different side of a male character: a side that is not John Wayne-like, a side that is, in fact, destructible. To some people, that is refreshing, and to other people, especially if they don't know me, it may be disturbing.
People tell you keep your job, start the company on the side. If I'm doing it on the side, then probably one of the reasons it fails is because I didn't dedicate enough time to it.
Before, early in my career, it was always just go out there and beat the next guy up. Whoever they put in front of me,just go beat him up. Everything else would take care of itself. You want more money? Go beat the next guy up, it will take care of itself. You want better sponsors? Go beat the next guy, it will take care of itself.