August 13, 2007
The Future of J-School Curricula
There is little doubt that this is an era of great transformation for the media industry. Neil Henry, an associate professor in the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California at Berkeley, wrote recently in The Chronicle Review that while technological advances have brought a welcome flood of new voices into the conversation, they have also contributed to the "corruption of professional values."
So what constitutes a relevant journalism-school education in the 21st century?
That question was the subject of much debate at the recent Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication annual convention, which wrapped up yesterday in Washington. One of the attendees was Dan Gillmor, a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. Gillmor writes that this was his fourth AEJMC conference and in that time, "citizen journalism has moved from heresy -- a topic to be considered, if at all, only in side conferences and hallways -- to something that, while still not widely accepted, is at least of interest."
"The shift reflects, as far as I can tell, the state of journalism education itself," Gillmor writes. "Newspapers are slow to adapt to the collision of technology and media, but journalism schools may be even slower."
Gillmor points to the persistence of course offerings with names like "Beginning Newswriting" as evidence of the growing irrelevance of the core curriculum at a time when "personal audio and video are becoming at least as much a part of the storyteller’s toolkit as text."
But there are signs of curriculum innovation under way that would perhaps bolster the spirit of pessimists like Gillmor. In last week's issue of The Chronicle, Katherine Mangan wrote about the controversy that has erupted around the new curriculum that was unveiled at Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism. At the center of the controversy is the increased emphasis on what is being called "audience understanding."
"It's not enough to train reporters to write for the evening broadcast news show or for the features section of a daily newspaper," says John Lavine, dean of the Medill School. "Our job is to create journalists who can win and hold the attention of media consumers faced with limited time and abundant media choices."
Evan Goldstein | Posted on Monday August 13, 2007 | PermalinkComments
Previous: Ignatieff Mea Culpa, Take 3
Next: Debating the Cultural Impact of the Internet
All of this of course begs the question of how we have come to define journalism. Is it incessant blogging about what your cat had for breakfast? Is it gossip? Or is it to serve the public as the Fourth Estate? I’d say the latter. News writing irrelevance in the curriculum?? Journalism schools had better continue to teach basic news writing. Most kids have a hard time with basic English skills thanks to texting and myriad competing forms of communication. And the last quote by Lavine? What does the Medill School plan to do? Create an army of YouTube inspired idiots pushing silly garbage off as journalism just to hold someone’s attention? Please. I get a better sense of the news reading Fark than I do from most “news” organizations.
— Firth E. State Aug 13, 03:30 PM #
Journalism schools should continue their core and basic curriculum. That said it also imperative and important schools do catch up with the times and the way new generations “get” their news.
The best school, the best journalist of the 21st century should be able to understand , prepare and practice 21st century journalism. Why not… use tools like YouTube but in a smart, professional, responsible way. Sure many don’t… but that’s why you are the journalist. If you as a journalist or you as student or a journalism school don’t see and understand this you are stuck in the past… and frankly your work may no longer make a difference.
— Patricio Aug 14, 06:25 PM #