What is journalism school for?

I did a multimedia journalism degree – with the rise of the web and the many types of media this involves (written, audio, video), there's a lot of value to be had in this kind of broad approach.

Nice one. I have stumbled and twittered this for my friends. Others no doubt will like it like I did.

Interesting post. A few items i would add. A good j-school is a excellent liberal arts degree regardless of whether you are interested in practicing journalism. This does mean a good j-school should teach you much about the broader world. A good j-school places journalism in a larger context than just a vocational future: how does it work and how should it work? how does it work in other countries? what can we learn from other fields that will inform journalism? A good j-school should challenge you to thing about “how journalism really works” through critically analyzing production, content and reception. A good j-school allows students to experiment with new ways of doing journalism. A good j-school is not limited by industry definitions of journalism. Don't settle for a j-school that does not offer these features.

Good post, Jeff. I think your point about students having to take responsibility to stay on top is really key. My j-school isn't superb, but the staff and faculty are always available and receptive. That allows proactive students to get a good j-education outside of coursework.

When you say “there's no substitute for learning on the job,” I wish you would've given a kudos to j-schools with good campus publications or internship outreach.

Adam B Sullivan
http://adambsullivan.com

[...] What is journalism school for? (Jeff Sonderman) • J-stuents totally unprepared for journalism (Rachel Kauffman) • Is j-school [...]

>> The degree doesn’t matter if you don’t have work ethic, aggressiveness, initiative and common sense.

Holds true for most things in life. Truth is, you can never stop learning. As soon as you do, you're on the down escalator toward irrelevance.

I wonder Jeff, to what degree (heh) do you think a second degree in something you would like to cover is a DISadvantage? The few courses I've had in the communications department as a “mature student” have had one thing in common: a strong emphasis on experts and quotes over any sort of reporter-written analysis and observation. Meaning, quoting Dr. McExpert is valued a hundred times higher than a reporter educated in the same subject citing his or her own observations.

In a situation like that where a reporter will find him or herself getting material from an expert with an axe to grind it would seem there becomes a conflict between this emphasis on external sources and calling bullshit.

I think that better armed reporter will write better news but if the marketplace is rewarding the more stenographic reporting then being better informed may not be a competitive advantage.

You're right that a lot of generalist reporters do too much stenography and rely on expert quotes rather than their own authority. And what I'm saying is, that is on the way out.

Having your own personal expertise in a subject you cover is a huge distinguishing factor. It's especially important in a networked age when any user is just a link away from any reporter — the ones who rise to the top are the ones with real expertise and authority on the subject, the rest of the wire-service-style generalist work becomes cheap commodity.

For example, I'd rather see someone with a law degree liveblog a big trial. I'd rather read what a blogger with a biology degree has to say about cloning technology developments.

When there was one newspaper in each town, and that was the only mainstream publisher of news, people settled for a generalist reporter dipping into subjects here and there. But online there is an abundance of content in every niche, and if you're not the best at the specific thing you're doing, users will find the better source.

I never doubted you and I would be on the same page on this, but looking at the fundamental disconnect between my outlook on the recent Weigel flap and those who considered it at all an issue had lead me to be very skeptical about what I'd value over what much of the marketplace would value.

Perhaps I am just being too cautious. It's the next business day and I see Weigel's appearance on a tv show being used as a viewer tease. Maybe this is just one more case when the traditional media is lagging and just has some loud defenders, not the majority support.

The worry THEN is how bad a message are these j-school grads getting in their institution and in the traditional outlets where they intern? Maybe a good argument for institutions like ours to get involved in that youth outreach as an alternative source of experience/training.

The Wiegel case is complicated.. not sure it's a directly instructive to this topic. But in short Weigel got canned for expressing opinions. Granted he phrased it a bit rudely (that Matt Drudge should set himself on fire), but still they were just opinions.

The old school print guys are uncomfortable with opinions from news reporters. They're not supposed to have them, which is absurd.

This post (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010…) on WaPo from fellow blogger Greg Sargent says it best: “I submit that someone can be a “real” reporter if he or she is accurate on the facts and fairly represents the positions of subjects; if he or she has a decent sense of what's newsworthy and important to readers; and if readers come away from his or her stuff feeling more informed than they were before.” Within those bounds, feel free to express an opinion. In fact, I WANT an informed, fair reporter to give me their best opinion about who's right.

And that's where it does tie to this topic. Reporters should be experts who are paid to give us their fair opinions, along with all the facts and context. I can disagree with their opinion while still retaining the facts it is based on.

Rock on. I especially agree with point No. 2 in meeting a network. I got a Masters of Science in journalism (go ahead, laugh it up) in Boston and the best thing that I found was a prestigious network of professionals (some may know of The Scarlet Mafia) in the sports reporting industry. I got opportunities, learned on the job and made a name for myself.

Did my courses teach me all that much? Yes and no. My J-school knews the importance of multimedia and is a leader in the area but most J-schools are still behind the curve. I came out knowing how to shoot/edit video/audio, take/edit pictures and create slide shows. And I am a writer, always have been. Never thought I would have acquired those skills, especially since I missed a part of the digital revolution in my early-to-mid 20s. For the most part I have taught myself the technology ahead of the curve and during school I helped pass it on to professors who, just like the rest of us, are learning along the way. A new ad network comes out everyday. A new smart phone platform. A new social media API. Android or iOS? HTML5 or Flash? The “experts” cannot even answer these questions, let alone the j-schools.

I count myself lucky. I would have never been in the position that I am now if not for j-school. It was great for me. It might not be great for others. There is value to a j-school these days (even those who are foolish enough to get a Masters in journalism) and I am living proof.

As Jeff says “The degree doesn’t matter if you don’t have work ethic, aggressiveness, initiative and common sense.” True. j-school can help you break down a door otherwise closed but only you can make yourself succeed.

Also, an obscure aside. This article was written on my birthday.

Rock on.

Editor Ron O’Regan’s blog post about his daughter starting j-school — against his advice — offers some additional insight for potential students: http://emediavitals.com/blog/17/tomorrows-journalists-must-embrace-their-inner-geek

Whoops, that’s ROB O’Regan :)