An unscrupulous paparazzi (which is a redundancy) has said that the work of 'razzis' is the only true journalism there is. He is right, bastusan nga lang. These bastos boors are saying a shade of truth there.*
It's the same reason why I don't believe much in the interview. We can never tell for certain if the one being interviewed is being honest. More often, he is automatically conscious of himself, that he's going to get published or featured. Consciously or unconsciously, he pre-screens what he says. Especially in print media, it's hard to detect lying; all the visual cues are automatically edited out. We should all presume honesty, but experience over the years has shown us that we should also buy lie detectors.*
If we think we should not be fooled by interviews, the more we should be wary of press conferences. We shouldn't even touch on this.*
A more accurate depiction of the truth may be the profile, the reporter engaging the target person in a certain activity, with a certain secret angle in mind, devising trick questions meant to catch the person's unguarded moments - with his implicit permission. *
An even more accurate work is the investigative report genre. Investigative journalists are people I look up to as modern-day superheroes. But doesn’t the genre tread a line dangerously close to paparazzi-hood? How do we know people's rights are not being violated? Who cares about a criminal's rights anyway?*
What has more weight - our constitutional rights or our right to social justice and the right to know? To many people, neither is important. What's important is their (non-)right to snoop on other's private affairs. Is that right?*
Obviously, the truth is out there somewhere. As are the lies.