me myself and I

In the 1948 Boston Globe Newsroom the Capital I's were filed off the Royal typewriters. This is so journalists would not put themselves into the story--makes sense for hard news. I don't think it works for feature stories though. Murray says that the "I" is important, "for the reporter to speak directly to the reader of his or her own experiences, observations, knowledge" I suppose, but the real reason I think that the "I" is important in a feature story, especially in the Midwest is that the "I" implies a "we".

A feature story should take a reader somewhere. A feature story involves a lot of information, and the best way to give it to a reader is through a narrative. A smart feature writer tells his audience a story, and fills in the facts as they are necessary. One of the best ways to take the reader on a journey is to tell them yours. No "I' works.

"In a dank jail cell in Wonderland sits the Mad Hatter. He sits with a slump, and remembers the little girl who got him into this predicament."

But an "I" can help bring the reader into the world. The reader trusts the paper, and wants to feel the writers emotions. Ones they would probably share.

"When I first saw the Mad Hatter in Wonderland jail, I wondered what such a friendly man was doing in this environment. As I walked down the hallway I saw murders, druggies, and gangster rabbits; what was this genial guy doing here?"

Both are good ledes (to a bad story), but in the Midwest, where family and community are still valued the reader wants to be led by the hand. He does not want to go and visit something alone. He wants to know you are there too, and you will explain it all. You will still explain it objectively. You will still explain it in full detail. But they know you are the one doing it. That matters in the Midwest.