Posts about jschool

Journalism when?

I was in a high-school classroom today, picked up a textbook called Journalism Today, and went looking for all the good stuff about online. Ha! The entirety of the internet was handled in three paragraphs on page 495. Granted, the book didn’t come out until 2001, so it would be asking too much to see much about blogs. But lots of major online news services are celebrating their 10th anniversaries this year (and my first is 11 years old), so there’s no reason the text could not have explored the opportunities and impact of the internet for journalism. Shocking.

I’m also scratching my head wondering why schools still print their papers. Every student is online and if any of them want to continue into journalism, creating a school site would be far better experience. I don’t want to hear how they’re scared of the internet; it’s time to join the new century and not doing so is a disservice to students. (I’m about to try to figure out how to convince my son’s principal of that).

See also Bryan Murley arguing that college papers should be promoting their online execs, as the Chicago Tribune just did.

: LATER: Scott Heiferman adds:

Reminds me… I recently heard Yahoo COO Dan Rosensweig say that in grade school on Long Island, they had lessons on how to properly fold/read your NYT on the train [for you inevitable life commuting to the city]. This was in response to him hearing the staggeringly low numbers of people in their 20s or 30s who read a newspaper (on paper). I also recently heard Nicholas Negroponte say that in the rare times when there’s a PC in a classroom in a developing country, he often sees the kids being taught Microsoft Office. Microsoft Office? As if the power of the technology is in ‘office skills’ vs. access to the world’s information/market/creativity/power/…

Newsroom as classroom

A British paper and university are teaming up to create a joint newsroom and degree in multimedia journalism. This isn’t quite what I suggested when I said that newsrooms should become classrooms, but it’s a fascinating step. [via Greenslade]

Hot media

The Independent ponders the value of media studies v. journalism studies and reports that over there, they saw a 25.9 percent increase in secondary students taking certification exams in media, film, or TV this year over last and a 250 percent increase in the number taking media studies at A level in the last decade. Change is enticing.

He speaks: Lemann responds

Nick Lemann responds to my Comment is Free post at the Guardian about the cutbacks at and his New Yorker essay. I’m glad he is joining the conversation he sparked. He mostly sticks to explaining his actions at the school. We do agree, as he says at the start, that “the internet is potentially the greatest reporting medium ever invented.” I’d like to explore other avenues of agreement. One clarification. Lemann says:

I think Jarvis and I also disagree about whether our school should teach students the substance of complicated subjects that they will write about as journalists – I strongly believe we should, because that is one of the most fundamental ways in which journalism can help inform citizens and thus strengthen democracy, but if I am reading Jarvis correctly he believes we should not because it will “create a greater gap between pro and am”.

No, I do believe that more education in the subjects reporters are likely to cover is important (and CUNY is offering such concentrations to our students, I should add). One cannot possibly argue that more education and knowledge is a bad thing. But no matter how hard and how much a journalism student studies, there will always be someone out there who knows much more. Journalists have fancied themselves experts — they often use the word now — and that’s just not the case, not usually. Reporters are facile at picking up subjects. Reporters should strive to be come more expert in the beats they cover. But, as I’m sure Lemann and I would agree, they do their best work when they go out and report, finding the knowledge of experts — who, thanks to the internet, can now share their knowledge on their own, albeit as amateur journalists. I do think is our job to narrow the gap between pro and am, between journalist and public, to do more together. But less education is not the path to do that. In fact, educating more people is the way to do it, I think.

He also complains that I don’t quote from his New Yorker essay in my post. True. That’s why I linked to it; that is our ethic of the link. And besides, I’d quoted from it plenty here. So I will link again to his Comment is Free post and I look forward to the continuing conversation.

Coffee’s on me, Dean.

: LATER: Over at Unpacking my Library, Chris Anderson, a Columbia Ph.D student also speculates on the meaning of it all and focuses on the notion of expertise:

So, is all this focus on a “new expertise” inherently conservative? Not necessarily, although, at first blush, it certainly is an attempt by a threatened profession to maintain its knowledge-boundary, which has conservative connotations. But as and other “networked” journalism projects have shown us, its possible to combine the expertise of the individual and the expertise of the group, at least in theory. The real question, in my mind, is how Columbia’s new MA students are being taught to regard “the expertise of the network.” Are they being taught that they, the “real experts” are a special caste, or, rather, are they learning that there exists such a thing as networked knowledge? These are empirical questions, and I hope to investigate some of them in the years ahead.

I like that: the expertise of the network.

As J-schools go…

I’m fascinated to see journalism schools mirroring the strategic debate going on in the journalism business — as well they should.

Columbia’s J-school seems to be establishing itself as the classicist, the sanctuary whose ivied castle walls guard journalism as journalism has been done. I suspect that’s an unfair summary but here’s the evidence: We see its dean, Nick Lemann, issuing his papal bull in The New Yorker setting up a separation between professional and amateur and protecting the professional. Next we see Lemann favoring print over online with his decision this week to cut and to invest instead in a direct-mail campaign to try to sell subscriptions to the print Columbia Journalism Review.

I said I thought that was a mistake. If anyone should be trying to learn how to successfully and creatively take a print brand and product online, shouldn’t it be a journalism school? Journalism Prof. Leonard Witt quotes fellow journalism Prof. Phil Meyer saying the Poynter Institute’s acquisition of Romenesko was the smartest thing they could have done, bringing attention, traffic, and gratitude to the group. Wasn’t CJRDaily potentially Columbia’s Romenesko? Couldn’t it have been the base to bring together the growing interest in and content about media and journalism online? Couldn’t CJRDaily have been the academic rendition of HuffingtonPost’s Eat the Press? Another journalism prof. weighed in at The Times:

Jay Rosen, a blogger and journalism professor at New York University, said the move was a “strategic error” and that the review should drop its print version to reduce costs and go entirely online. “I’m sure their current subscribers want it in print, but you have to look at your potential subscribers,” he said. “Since the profession is going toward the Web, in the long run, that’s the smarter move.”

Now I suppose it is a defensible position to be journalism’s classicist, for some in the trade do believe their classical values and standards are being threatened. Personally, I see no such threat; I see opportunity to expand journalism and update the standards, and I see the public helping to enforce them. Even so, there are no doubt plenty of students who want classical journalism and there are places that will hire those students, considering Columbia’s standing in the pantheon of J-schools. Yet after Columbia went through some considerable tsuris to reinvent the journalism program, I wonder whether this is where they wanted to end up. I’m told that Columbia is going through a rebranding. I’m eager to to see how it positions itself not just among journalism schools but in the industry.

Now is so happens that the Columbia Journalism Review has a profile in the current issue of the new dean of Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism (well, that’s what they called it when I was there; now they’re calling it a school of journalism and integrated marketing communications). John Lavine took an iron grip on the school to remake it and “blow up” the curriculum. See their radically rebranded home page. It appears that Lavine plans to turn it into the institution that will force journalism and media to reexamine their responsiveness to the audience.

I’m not sure what the combination of journalism and advertising in one school does to meet this end, other than to confuse students and the world (which was certainly the case when I went there). Lavine has to try to explain that away:

At the edges, the integrated marketing faculty will be selling things, and that is anathema, and should be, to the journalist. At the edges, the journalist will say things that are enormously unpopular and that’s anathema to the marketer. But in the center the journalist must, when trying to build or deepen an audience, know how to market. And, in the center, the marketer who’s helping the journalist must know more about messages and storytelling to help market the media.

What I believe is right about that is that journalism must learn to listen to the public it serves and that journalists must understand the business so they can support their journalism. And though we hate to admit it, the truth is that journalism has been marketing for years: What is a lede, a headline, a front page, and a cover but a means to market news? Lavine has been helping the business try to learn these lessons with Medill’s Readership Institute and its Media Management Center (with whom I worked on the hyperlocal citizens’ media project GoSkokie). He preaches that journalism needs “revolution, not evolution.” Amen to that.

So there we see two radically different views of how to prepare journalists for the future of their business.

I will hasten to add that I don’t know a thing about the rest of the landscape of J-schools. I don’t even start working at one — at CUNY’s new Graduate School of Journalism — until later this month. But I see examples of different views here and there, some representing just individuals. Berkeley‘s J-school has been web-wise for sometime and has also produced good journalism and a new forum for it with PBS’ Frontline. The aforementioned Leonard Witt has been a leader in public journalism for years. The University of Maryland’s J-school provided a home for Jan Schafer and J-lab, which tries to support and award innovative news projects. Then, of course, there’s my goomba Jay Rosen’s, which tries to find new ways to support journalism. And I put my personal stake in the ground here, arguing that we need to find the ways to make journalism more collaborative and less dependent upon media and that we must redefine the roles of journalists.

So as much as I don’t understand where Columbia’s Lemann is coming from and where he’s going, I’ll say he certainly reflects one school of thought in the journalism biz. It’s just not my school.

: Here‘s Business Week’s Bruce Nussbaum on the Columbia move.

And here’s David Hirschman in Editor & Publisher, which itself cut back its print life to push online.

: LATER: Here‘s John Robinson, editor of the Greensboro News & Record:

I appreciate CJR boss, Nicholas Lemann’s predicament and decision. We, and most newspapers, face the same issues. They are monumental, requiring gutsy vision and the ability to make tough choices. But I can’t imagine responding favorably to a subscription solicitation for a monthly publication as it is designed today. And I doubt many of my colleagues would either.

I wonder about the role one of the leading journalism schools could play in helping us ink-on-paper wretches better understand and grow into the future (and the present, for that matter). This ain’t it.