...the role of a generalist.

I had a liberal arts education. And never took journalism courses. The idea was to become a generalist, of sorts. Knowing something about lots of things. But not necessarily an expert on a particular subject. Back in the late 1950s and the 1960s, that was deemed the best way to get into journalism, to become a writer for newspapers. Seemed like a good idea. And I don't regret it. But times have changed. Now many of the people who hire journalists encourage specialization. Become that expert on one subject. Well, I'm retired. So I don't have to start over. I'll settle for being a generalist. I like to dabble in all sorts of subjects. Politics. Sports. Economics. Philosophy. Psychology. History. Travel. I'm curious. As a writer, I allow people in all walks of life to teach me. I interview 'em. And have them tell me about their expertise. But in laymen's terms. Words that I can understand. I'd feel comfortable with a physicist or a doctor or a theologian or an astronomer or a politician or a baseball player. All kinds of people. That's what I liked about writing for newspapers. I'd take on any kind of assignment. Even if I didn't know much about the subject. It was an opportunity to learn. And to write about the subject in ways that ordinary people without expertise could understand. I think that's the role of a generalist. --Jim Broede