Retooling the J-School Assembly Line

by Jay Rosen

First, the big picture. For the last four or fives decades at least,

what the news industry wanted from the J-school was simple: “Send us people we can plug into our production routine tomorrow.” That was the contract that governed journalism education. And when I say

“tomorrow,” I mean that literally. The industry and the journalism

professionals who did the hiring wanted people who could sign the

forms from HR and learn where the bathrooms are today, get put on an assignment tomorrow, and return with a finished story that could run.

This system satisfied everyone because everyone got something from it. The employers loved it because they could offload their training costs onto the university. Newsroom leaders loved it because they got “camera-ready copy,” so to speak, and a place to move retirees when it was time for them to leave the newsroom. Students loved it because it was a super-practical education that led to jobs. What’s not to like about that?

Universities loved it because enrollments were large, costs were low,

students were happy, and because the J-school allowed them to handle smoothly a key constituency: local media potentates. The president of Northwestern can manage his relationship with the Tribune through Medill: Perfect, right? Parents loved it because the kids weren’t choosing art history. The “practicing” faculty, ex-newsroom people, loved it because they could teach what they knew from doing it for 25 years. The research faculty loved it because everyone left them alone to chase tenure and refereed publications without asking how any of that improved journalism.

And the guarantor for the whole system: Prizes! The awarding of prizes made everyone feel even better: Quality was being served; distinction was being won” democracy was being protected. No one could say the J-school wasn’t respected: They took our people, and they took our prizes.

Good times! And they were good times. The institution — the

university-based J-school — grew in size and stature. Certainly

portions of the news industry, such as local TV news, began to insist on journalism school graduates. Others welcomed the degree, including other countries that began to imitate the American model.

Then it all collapsed. And that’s why you’re doing this report. Why

did it collapse? Well, it’s easier to see today the many weaknesses of

“send us people we can plug into our production routine tomorrow.”

These were concealed by the good times in Happy Valley era in

journalism education, which is now over. I would start with the

biggest one. The large modern research university, where most of the

big J-schools were located, is supposed to produce new knowledge. What new knowledge about journalism was being produced under “send us people we can plug into our production routine tomorrow?” Research went on, but it was strengthening another field: the sociology of mass media.

The newsroom leaders and proud professionals in journalism never

realized that they should be fighting to redirect that academic work

toward their needs: for research and development, craft renewal,

intellectual liveliness in the day-to-day. This is mainly because they

didn’t realize they had any such needs! The gods of the production

routine were in charge. Sticking to that also meant (further up the

value chain) reliable 20 percent margins for the potentates. The

system worked. You don’t screw with it. Intellectually, you don’t

screw with it. Part of the system — and this is the most incredible

part to me — were attitudes within the professional culture that spit

at intellectual work in journalism because, really… what was there

to know? You get the story and write it. Don’t libel anyone. Have fun.

It’s a very simple trade, or as so many have said to me over the years

“a craft, not a profession.”

Well, in that case why did we need professional schools of it? In fact

the rationale was always thin. When Lee Bollinger [became president at] Columbia, he, in effect, said to the faculty: I understand that you

train the best and the brightest to be working journalists. That’s

great! I get the prizes, the duPonts and the Pulitzers; they’re great!

But let me ask you something. I have one of the great knowledge

factories in the world here: Columbia University. How does your school help weave the best and the brightest discoveries made at Columbia into the journalism we teach at Columbia so that the media gets better and smarter, since it’s also become such a powerful institution and closed circle on the earth? That’s what he wanted to know. But there was no answer to that. I don’t mean at Columbia, I mean anywhere in journalism education. (This is my paraphrase; no one at Columbia would tell the story that way.)

There was no answer to Bollinger’s question. There was just: “We send them people they can plug into their production routine tomorrow.” And, “we encourage students interested in science journalism to take science courses!” That’s not what he meant.

Bring it all home: What happens when all of a sudden the production

routine has to change because technology is changing the way people get news? What happens if, suddenly, research and development becomes a big priority because the news industry needs new products, new business models, and new work flows? What if a thin and underdeveloped learning culture suddenly becomes a massive liability in a craft struggling to adapt? What if people for whom innovation meant a new food section have to re-invent their workplace? Are they going to be able to turn to the J-school for help?

That, to me, is the challenge in journalism education right now. My answer is the Studio 20 program. No one is funding us.

Jay Rosen

January 2015