Debating journalism education
June 20th, 2008I’m in Cambridge, MA with six faculty members at a meeting of the Carnegie-Knight Task Force on the Future of Journalism Education. Today and tomorrow we are meeting with representatives from 11 other journalism schools to debate various aspects of the future of journalism, with an emphasis on how well journalism and journalism education serve democracy.
The topics ranged from the role and power of the individual journalist in the changing news environment to “rethinking” journalism education.
Leaders of the discussion about journalism education suggested that journalism schools are still seen as trade schools and that they are held in low regard by professionals. They argued that we don’t need to teach new technology, but that students can learn skills such as “Final Cut Pro” in little workshops outside the regular curriculum. They argued for more courses in critical thinking and fewer skills courses.
At Carolina we argue that critical thinking and skills teaching should be integrated. We don’t turn up our nose at teaching skills; rather, we incorporate the teaching of skills with theory and practice. For example, a course in photojournalism incorporates the act of shooting a picture with visual literacy and ethics. We don’t separate technology from story telling. We don’t separate a journalistic product from the tools used to create it.
I’d like some alumni to weigh in here.
The primary problem with separating skills from critical thinking is that it runs counter to much of what is happening in journalism today. Our own Ryan Thornburg argued that the goals of journalism should be to create an “efficacious democracy” and “efficient markets.” In other words, journalists should provide information that enables citizens to participate in an effective democracy, and they should provide information about goods and services. He argued that more voices incorporated into journalistic products create a more informed electorate. Ryan argued that smart journalists will build an infrastructure to organize citizen journalism, recognize volunteers and allow them to share information with each other. To be representatives of our readers, Ryan argued, we have to make them our constituents, not just an audience.
This egalitarian approach to journalism characterizes good journalism education as well as good journalism.
Those leading the journalism education discussion suggested we emulate educational models adopted by business schools, i.e. the MBA, or by law schools, in order to “professionalize” journalism education. I disagree. Teaching journalism at the undergraduate level allows us to teach basic principles of free expression to a larger number of people than we could if we restricted journalism education to the graduate level.
The rights a journalist has–to inspect public records and to express ideas freely–are the rights we have as citizens. What we teach journalists is how to exercise these rights, how to get access, how to communicate effectively, and how to understand the impact of our words and pictures. That is our first and most important goal.
An elite model of journalism education may serve elite journalists, but it doesn’t serve the democracy.
