What history journalists need to know
There's this nice little blogosphere discussion going on that makes the blogosphere so much fun. Alan Mutter of Newsosaur talks about a conversation with a journalism student who doesn't know who Mike Royko is...or was.
Mindy McAdams of Teaching Online Journalism turns the table on Alan with a "do you know who these people are" new media list of her own.
Then Meranda of Meranda Writes puts them both in their place, I think. (And I am a loyal devotee of them both.)
I'm 22. I didn't take a "journalism history" course in college. Those lessons were interspersed among my Intro to Mass Comm, Law, Ethics, Magazine Publishing, Beat Reporting, etc. courses. And the famous journalists I did and do know are probably more happenstance than concentrated effort.
So someone give me a list of the top 10-15 greatest journalists of all time, and I promise I'll memorize those I don't know at the risk of looking dumb and being chastised down the line by some high-brow editor. No, seriously.
But therein also lies the problem. I'll memorize it. Like it's for a test, which I guess it could be. But who knows if the names I'm given would be the right ones. It's kind of subjective.
Or is it more important that my classes in j-school taught me and emphasized tangible things. I remember and use every day the practical skills that allow me to do this job competently not necessarily the names of those journalists before me. I can understand knowing important rulings like Times v. Sullivan. I can understand needing to know when newspapers started to mass publish and the impact cable had on broadcast TV. I can even understand and appreciate reading great journalists of the past to make my own work stronger.
But in the end, if I had to choose, I choose real-world application over historical context. That's just me.
Comments (5)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Again, give me a break.
John, come on... you can't believe if a recent grad doesn't know who XYZ is that doesn't make them a good journalist.
A good journalist is a writer and reporter... You should be asking people who the mayor of this town is and who's on the city council... not who some dead person was.
There's a reason why journalism history is an elective in journalism school and reporting, ethics and media are required.
Posted on January 17, 2008 11:30 AM
Are real journalists afraid to use their real names?
Uh, no, I don't believe recent college graduates necessarily need to know about dead reporters. That's why I said that I thought Meranda put them in their place.
Posted on January 17, 2008 11:35 AM
A journalist worth his salt wouldn't use his real name on a blog. My audience does not need to know my opinions on matters.
They just need to know the facts in my stories.
Posted on January 17, 2008 11:44 AM
That's an interesting perspective about how the audience doesn't need to know your opinions, as you're leaving them here.
I'm wondering which of your journalism professors -- maybe the one in ethics? -- taught you that it was OK to wander around blogs leaving opinions anonymously.
Posted on January 17, 2008 11:54 AM
I like Meranda's take on it. I'll admit I have only a passing recognition of Royko's name.
I also like Mindy's take, but I think she got the analogy wrong -- I'd be curious to see how many people over 40 are familiar with someone like Cory Doctorow or Wil Wheaton (post-ST), people whose writing is widely disseminated over the Internet. Most of the people she listed are pioneers of technology, not writing. (I bet my predecessors didn't know the pioneers behind the journalism technology they used to use.)
Posted on January 18, 2008 12:42 AM