Tuesday, April 21, 2009
It's a great question and a potentially damning one. It's not that journalism educators aren't obsessing about the stresses being placed upon the profession. It's a fair question to ask what all that obsessing in the halls of academia has produced.
When one thinks about great journalism schools, does one imagine them as places of innovation and experimentation that test new methods of news gathering, presentation and delivery? Are they incubators of new industry models or is that more the province of business schools?
Where do new ideas in the journalism field come from?
Monday, April 20, 2009
But when it comes to true innovation, the fact of the matter is that we don't have the framework to support new discovery or new techniques. The business school continually improves the rating of its international business program, the schools of public health and nursing are ever-increasing in size and popularity, and the university's research efforts are on the brink of making the widespread use of hydrogen fuel cells a reality for this country.
Meanwhile, back at our ranch, we're plodding through the basics. I've never been in more than two journalism classes at a time, but my accounting major friends spend all day correcting budgets and doing audits. My pre-med friends kill mice from noon to five every Wednesday and Thursday. They're getting hours and hours of substantial experience and exposure in their classes every day while we're learning concepts for only a few hours a week.
If journalism schools want to innovate, they have to give us the tools to really know what we're doing. Where is the class on HTML coding? When are we going to learn about new media? (Does anyone know what that means yet?) I get anxious knowing that I'm going into a field that I'm not fully prepared for.
Journalists have to be ready for all possibilities. At present, we're only ready to scramble for dwindling jobs in a dying medium. If j-schools want to innovate, they need to offer some kind of instruction in areas where the innovation is happening instead of leaving us to figure out those uncharted waters on our own. Once we have the tools to figure some of this stuff out (internet advertising, content generation, effective blogging and vlogging and the like), we'll be able to experiment with and develop our own approaches to the dire problems our industry faces.
New ideas for journalism come from the people who take the risk and use new technology in a different way. Because it doesn’t take long for people to catch on, others will begin to see that the new way of using a program or device will be easier than the old. The whole field is about trial and error, and journalists are continually reinventing their crafts to fit the medium for which they work. It would help if colleges and universities would continually update their journalism curriculum that fit the changing world.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
As you asked, "does one imagine them as places of innovation and experimentation that test new methods of news gathering, presentation and delivery?"
The answer is, yes. College is where you can try new things, and where new ideas are incubated, so when the newly trained journalist gets in the work force, they can present those ideas learned in college to the higher ups at a paper/magazine/website/etc. I believe our school should adapt to the new environment, and experiment with some new teaching and curriculum tactics, while still providing the solid base it has become known for.
Even though we have a print medium, and should keep it, our curriculum should include more online journalism classes, since that is the medium things look to be going. That way, our curriculum can help form new ideas to improve journalism.
And, as you asked: " Are they (schools) incubators of new industry models or is that more the province of business schools?"I don't believe it is solely up to the business guys to decide things, but that is where our new endowment for business journalism comes in. Not only should that branch focus on covering business, but also it should focus on the business of journalism, so we can fix this whole mess we are in now.
It is said that journalists are chameleons, that we can go and fit into any environment, and adapt to it. We are currently adapting to the digital takeover of information, so shouldn't our journalism schools be equally adaptable?
I think so.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
So the ‘sky is not falling,’ there is the possibility of a future but it’s all on me, good to know.
It is scary time to begin this process. The whole landscape and nature of the business is shifting, and where it's going is only partially apparent. Throughout the country newsrooms are being forced to cut their staff and their budgets. Some have shifted to online only while others have closed all together.
My Journalism 201 professor, Auggie Grant takes a positive look at these paradigm changes. He says this is the most exciting time to be in this field and if you can adapt and learn and be on the cutting edge you will have no problems.
He said this with the obvious idea that first you must write well, and in addition be on the cutting edge. It is good advice. I plan to focus on my tech skills and writing, stay positive and work hard. Hopefully, I will have a bit of Adler’s luck.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
1. Your career will probably depend on luck.
That is true. It is all about being at the right place and the right time, and knowing the right people.
2. Few journalists write really well, so you have an advantage if you can, especially as editing resources shrink.
No matter what happens to the form journalism is presented, great writing will always take precedent.
3. Despite the current hard times, students have an advantage over professionals because they have tech skills, and aren’t entrenched in the hierarchy.
That is true. Just another example of Structural economics.
4. Attitude counts more than ever.
Hope it doesn't count too much.
5. You’ve got to get known, because editors tend to hire people they already know. (Note, this is when Adler mentioned that he’s interviewed “children of board members of companies they cover” for jobs.)
Like I said in question 1. It is all about who you know, not so much what you know.
6. Be essential, not discretionary.
7. Advertisers have much more power than ever, and that’s an enormous problem.
Since they pay, they have a lot of leeway. I'd also think Magazine subscribers have a good bit a leeway.
8. An editor-in-chief spends less than half his time doing anything even remotely journalistic.
Mostly business talk.
9. Analog dollars make digital pennies, but online may save the industry.
Let's hope it does.
10. The skills of a journalist have value, even if it’s not in journalism. (Especially helpful to hear when Adler predicted that journalists’ salaries will likely take a downward turn.)
Once hired, it is all about what you bring to the table. Who know gets you in the door, what you know and what you do makes the paycheck.
Online sites are the perfect vehicle for upstart investigative reporting as the overhead is low and the writer can focus on specific stories without specific time frames or deadlines, as investigative pieces can take time to flesh out. As the sites develop, the more popular sites will likely grow and become more slick and user friendly. One could envision such sites growing in readership and then being bought out by bigger media venues, as happens with other popular online sites.
I think we will see more reporter operated investigative sites develop and I think it is a good thing. The worst problem I could think of is the development of sites that operate outside of traditional ethical standards, but I think that the audience will be able to discern the good from the bad.
I know the Internet is a great venue for local, regional and international investigative reporting. I have been reading a fantastic investigative reporter online for about six years. Greg Palast, http://www.gregpalast.com/, offers great investigative reporting, though it is of a progressive nature. Palast uncovered a variety of issues following the 2000 and 2004 elections, and then went on to uncover eerily similar irregularities in the national Mexican election. His site has grown in popularity and become more polished and slick since i first began reading it and since then he has himself turned a great deal of the issues first developed on his site into a book. Palast has been able to grow his site through quality in depth reporting and self-marketing. He is offering a valuable needed commodity to his community of readers, a need which other media outlets -at least American ones - are not providing and is fulfilling the watchdog role. I think it is up to the reader to judge the product of sites like Atlanta Unfiltered and Palast and decide if they are serious quality journalism. It is up to the writer to produce and self-promote and find the audience.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
It seems like high-ranking sources that would be ideal for interviewing in hard-hitting news stories would be less willing to cooperate with these independent outlets. Especially when it's hard to differentiate between the good Web sites and potential time-wasters.
I can't imagine that, without the backing of an institution like The State or The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, it's going to be possible for very long for independent news sites to actually get tough questions answered for investigative stories.
But maybe these independent Web sites will be able to make enough of a name for themselves to create some sort of loyal following and be taken seriously by potential story subjects. Matt Drudge has a job, doesn't he?