Washington Post correspondent Edward Cody describes the teaching of Marxist journalism in Chinese universities in a story found here . The example of Marxist journalism at the end of the piece struck me as similar to some definitions of public or civic journalism. ELW

I found this excerpt from Dr.Caughie’s article particularly interesting and am reminded that too many people believe talk shows (regardless of purpose or content) are journalism.

“Classrooms today seem to be more like talk shows, with the professor as host, than forums for intellectual inquiry. Students who don’t read the assignment and never set foot in a library feel every bit as entitled to express their opinions on an assigned reading as those who have read carefully and researched extensively. And because administrators pay more attention to ten-point scales on student evaluation forms, and even chili peppers on RateYourProfessor.com, than to the kind of intellectual work that goes on in the classroom, too many teachers feel their job is to acknowledge any and all opinions offered on the topic being studied. Not to do so is to risk being exposed as someone intent on indoctrinating students rather than teaching them. That is the danger we must respond to, not the threat of politics in the classroom.”

According to the American Association of University Professors
“Between 1998 and 2001, the number of full-time non-tenure-track positions grew by 35.5 percent.

Since the 1990s, the majority of all new full-time hires have been off the tenure track.

In contrast, only 3.3 percent of full-time faculty appointments were off the tenure track in 1969.

Non-tenure-track positions of all types now account for 65 percent of all faculty appointments in American higher education.”

My sense is journalism schools / departments with dual tenure tracks (professional and academic) will find it increasingly difficult to hire professional faculty for tenurable slots in the future. ELW

Some interesting thoughts here from Dr. Burns. I thought I’d share.

Consider this scenario. A reporter gets a tip that seven people have been shot dead in a random attack at a local fast food outlet. The editor wants a story quickly in time for the next edition. The reporter must make many decisions before writing what is, on the face of it, a straightforward news story.

On one level, the journalist’s role is simply to collect and record the facts. The public interest in the events may be assumed to be high, based on news values of proximity, relevance, consequence, timeliness and perhaps unusualness. On another level answering the question “who, what, where, when, why and how?” with certainty is a complex task, capable of being interpreted in more than one way.

In this scenario, the first thing the reporter must do is establish if the tip is true—if the incident actually happened, and if the account given to the reporter is accurate and not exaggerated, because once it is published the story will take on a credibility it didn’t have before. It may also be actionable to suggest that a violent crime has taken place at particular commercial premises if this is not the case. So the first thing the reporter must do is establish for a fact the things already “known”. Without having picked up the telephone to dial the police, the reporter is already engaging in critical reflection as he/she considers the context of the interview about to be undertaken, including the strengths and weaknesses of human sources of information. For example, on one hand a police officer can provide facts drawn from police records and is an authoritative source. On the other, the police officer is an individual whose personal opinions may not be insightful at all, regardless of the certainty with which they are expressed. Hence even an “authoritative” source of information can be completely reliable in one context and completely unreliable in another.  It is only by critical reflection in the context of the moment that a reporter can make these judgments.

The reporter must also decide what to ask the interviewee as a means of establishing the facts. Of all the powers exercised by journalists, their decisions about what to include and what to omit from reporting has the greatest influence on the messages received by audiences. For example, is it important to the story to report the identities of the people who have been killed? What would be achieved by reporting this? If the reporter publishes the names of the dead so soon after the event, he or she runs the risk of informing the relatives before the police do which could cause great individual harm. At the same time, publishing the names of the dead could be argued to serve the purpose of reassuring others that their loved ones were not involved.

During the course of the interview, the reporter is constantly reflecting on the information being collected, in the light of the reporter’s own perceptions about the honesty of the interviewee and presence of an other agendas in the interview. How will the journalist distinguish between speculation and informed comment? As part of that process, the journalist must also consider if other sources are available to verify the information already collected. Is there any information that can’t be verified? For example, should the reporter include a second-hand account of shouting said to have been heard during the incident? If he/she decided this information was too important to the story to leave it out, the decision would value the dramatic narrative of the incident over any legal action that might follow the crime. All the same, the journalist must consider the question “Could this choice be defended in court?” Some facts can be independently verified by seeking out physical evidence. Are sources such as other media, databases, websites and books intrinsically more credible than others? Why? This scenario illustrates the importance of self-efficacy in journalism because in practice so much depends on the journalist’s competence in critical reflection. Once the interview is completed, the reporter must again consider the question “What are the relevant facts?” in light of their own professional understanding of the interests and priorities of the audience.

~ Lynette Sheridan Burns, Understanding Journalism

Colleagues:

I was told by a colleague today that AEJMC is scheduling a plenary session at next year’s convention on students’ feelings of entitlement. High time, I say. I would welcome discussion from any and all on how you’re managing this in your classrooms. Are you finding your young charges crave affirmation, have skewed perceptions of excellence and have little appreciation for “dues paying”?  Has this affected your chapter?

elw

The committee’s idea for a blog was a fine one. I don’t think we need anything any more ceremonial than a welcome ya’ll.

Ginny and Paul have christened this baby so let’s get the word out that journalism educators have a place to go to exchange ideas and info.

(Maybe vent a little?)

All the best,

Ernie