what motivates you? Is it something like what I describe, playing out some personal psychodrama? Or more like the responder's sense of civic duty and service to readers?

Neither one. I got into it because I like to learn things and tell stories about what I learn to people who are interested--even if what I'm learning about is how a 64-bit OS differs from a 32-bit one.

Being incurably curious and liking to share what you learn seems to me to be one of the more lasting drivers for doing journalism. I still use that curiosity, even though I'm now only a journalist part-time. I don't think that playing out personal psychodrama would be as sustainable as curiousity, and civic duty would be only mildly better.

Is there anything out there (dogs, cars, computers, fish, politics, whatever) that YOU would like to know more about? That, I think, is what will hook you.

I entered the field in Eastern Europe, where a free press was a brand new thing and highly respected. I came back to the US full of lofty ideals about civic duty and journalism's role in a democratic society. I was intensely disappointed in the state of journalism here and have since moved into a different field.

The double standard regarding the Iraq War was the breaking point for me. If you had no opinion or supported the war, it was not considered a conflict of interest to cover politics during the leadup to it but if you opposed the war openly, many people believed it was a conflict of interest. This explains in my mind the huge failure of the American press to serve the interests of the people regarding this war, something that has since been documented.

So I left and moved into other writing oriented fields, which left me free to be an activist on my own time.

I loved journalism. I still love and believe in what it is supposed to be. I do think it ought to be a public trust and a public service, and that we respect it so little because we didn't spend 40 years without it.

I got into it because I like to learn things and tell stories about what I learn to people who are interested

Me too. And luckily I've been able to continue doing that in my current job, where I interview scientists all day and learn about the latest research, including stem cell research. It's absolutely fascinating and because I'm doing it for a non-profit, I get to contribute to a good cause as well.

When I started out as a journalist more than 20 years ago, I was just like you: terrified.

Now, I can pretty much ask anyone any question, because my skin thickened and because I started this career relatively late in life I'm older than most of my interview subjects, which allows a certain bemused distance. Besides, the government newsmakers I deal with generally deserve all the discomfort I can deliver.

But, as a colleague said the other day, it's just not fun any more.

Newspapers are dumbing themselves down as fast as they can to capture the elusive youth market. Because young people want electronic delivery, they never will subscribe to a paper. Ratings (hits) drive newspapers' Web content. Everything has to be written in 500 words or less -- enough space for a single idea, no context or background and a couple of voices that must include at least one "real person" even if he or she doesn't add any information to the story. The story must be easily converted to comic-book-style graphics. Pop culture trumps national and international news.

The sad truth is, you're trying to apply conventional ideals to a dying industry, where people seriously argue that resistance to knocking down the wall between advertising and news is just old-school snobbery.

Give yourself five years. If you still have the same complaints, you always will, so find work more meaningful and helpful than breaking your back for corporate media. And remember: You look like an ant to them.

I can sympathize with the LW. I've worked for years as an editor, and prefer editing to writing because I can suggest that my reporters go out and ask the hard questions :) But at the same time, I have to have a lot of hard conversations with the reporters who work for me, telling them about problems in their articles and gaps in coverage...that's not much easier. But over the years I've observed that a lot of people with social disorders (or quasi-social disorders) seem to go into journalism.

For example, I had a reporter with Asperger's Syndrome who had a hard time relating to people and generally seemed awkward around them. (Google Asperger's Syndrome if you don't know what it is.) But on the positive side, he had an incredible thirst for knowledge, and never hesitate to ask the hard questions because it was just as difficult for him to ask the easy questions.

I had another reporter with pronounced stutter. When you envision the "stereotypical reporter" running after a source asking hard-hitting questions, you don't envision someone who stutters. (Then again, most reporters don't fit that stereotype.) You know I discovered about her reporting technique? Many people are uncomfortable around individuals who stutter, so they do all of the talking. She'd ask one or two questions, and people would talk and talk and talk.

Then again, I had other reporters who didn't make the most of their social anxiety. Like the reporters who were too lazy (or scared or intimidated) to spend time cultivating sources. Their stories didn't have as much depth because every time they talked to a source, it was a new relationship and they had to gain that person's trust.

So I'd suggest you give it some time. Figure out how to use your "disability" to your advantage. And listen to the other responders who say that there are a lot of jobs out there for journalists, more than just reporting for a daily newspaper. (But I would suggest you discount the suggestion that trade journalism doesn't require you to ask hard questions. Au contraire.)

Good luck in your quest!