In a recent phone interview with a national publication, former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson shared some pointed criticism about a new generation of journalists. “From four years of teaching at Harvard,” she said, “so many of my students are interested in journalism, but they mostly want to write first-person, highly personal narratives about themselves. That may reflect their age. But I think there’s too much of that in journalism. It’s not about us. It’s about the world, and covering the world.”

Here at Mishpacha, we’ve visited and revisited the “I” issue many times over the years. Our classically trained journalists (we have quite a few on staff) were taught never to use “I” in their features. This story is not about you, the thinking goes. It’s unprofessional or even arrogant to make yourself a player when featuring someone else.

Times have changed. Virtually all journalistic forums have seen the rise of the personal essay — a genre of writing that shares insight, information, or inspiration through the prism of personal experience. Personal essays might revolve around an aerobics class, a trip to the grocery, a last visit to a dying friend, or a symphony clarinetist’s agonizing struggle to achieve work-life balance. All attempt to share a takeaway nugget along with a compelling read.

We all understand why the personal essay has to be personal. But today you’ll find features, interviews, even science or medical-oriented pieces where the writer is a visible player. Is that against the rules? (Are there any rules left?)

Assuming the most important rule for a writer is to be read, “I” is an effective way to bring readers into a story. A light personal touch, a frank anecdote, a family connection — all these devices allow the writer to function like an anchor or host who virtually invites the readers to come along to an interesting place or to meet an interesting person.

The caveat, of course, is that the writer can’t confuse a personalized style with a skewed focus. Even if you use “I,” the piece is not about “I.” It’s about your subject. Overfocusing on the writer leaves readers misled or annoyed. Remember that principle from journalism school? This story is not about you.

Does that mean the writer should be absent from his or her story? I don’t think so. As annoying as an overly visible writer can be, another sign of less-than-masterful feature writing is a writer who has no voice, who allows his or her interviewee to take over the story entirely and is present only to ask some questions or string the quotes together.

At the end of the day, a skillfully built feature is always a dance between narrative and quotes. Just as the writer shouldn’t become the star, the subject shouldn’t take over (unless the piece is presented in an “as told to” format). Even without a single “I,” a good writer’s voice will still come through in a vibrant narrative.

You don’t have to remind your readers that “I asked” in order for them to realize that you asked some insightful questions. You don’t have to start your piece with “I’m sitting in the office of” for them to know that your interview was conducted in person, on site. If you’re a strong writer who’s holding the reins of your piece, your readers will sense your byline even without an “I.” Your craftsmanship, your language, your metaphors and scene-setting can make your presence known just as effectively — and your readers will have no doubt who is holding the mike.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 720)