Ideal candidate has lost touch with journalism

longwords · **Posted:** Sat Oct 27, 2007 11:32 am

SUNY Albany wants someone to teach journalism:

Quote:

Successful applicantsâ€™ preferred area of expertise is New Media, including multimedia journalism, new media studies, videography, visual culture, digital publishing, and citizen journalism. The ideal candidate has a doctoral degree in an appropriate discipline from a university accredited by the U.S. Department of Education or an internationally recognized accrediting organization.

Editer · **Posted:** Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:33 pm

I don't see the "lost touch" part. Looks as if they want someone who has some grip on how people are getting their news these days.

longwords · **Posted:** Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:10 pm

If their ideal candidate has a doctorate, it has probably been years since that person worked as a journalist on a daily basis, if ever.

Editer · **Posted:** Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:27 pm

Several of my Ph.D.-seeking colleagues are combining work and school. Most of the rest, including me, have well over 10 years on the job.

Also, I caught your selective editing. You left out:

Quote:

Exceptional candidates with a professional masterâ€™s degree or candidates with outstanding professional experience or significant creative achievements are also strongly encouraged to apply. The Program is looking for an individual who will sustain a serious program of research or creative scholarship and will enjoy teaching lecture courses as well as introductory and advanced workshops.

I know "If you can work on the copy desk you can do anything" is a popular narrative hereabouts, but those are not skills you learn in the newsroom.

almost crotchety · **Posted:** Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:55 pm

Quote:

If their ideal candidate has a doctorate, it has probably been years since that person worked as a journalist on a daily basis, if ever.

Why the bias against Ph.D.s? I have one and believe I'm not the only full-time copy editor (I'm the slot at my paper) on this list who does.

longwords · **Posted:** Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:18 pm

Perhaps my encounters with people teaching journalism have been unfortunate. The most recent discussion with someone teaching journalism and holding a Ph.D., a few months ago, was about hiring interns. I explained we weren't hiring interns and that we had, in fact, laid off people just a couple of months previously.

The professor asked whether there was enough work for interns, and I said, yes, all the salaried employees were working overtime and we had been told the department had to reduce expenses further.

The professor advised me, in all seriousness, to inform my publisher that more staff members were needed in the newsroom, because if the publisher didn't know we needed more staff, we would continue to be overworked.

When I said this wouldn't happen, I continued to receive advice about how to talk to my publisher about this, despite the fact that I made it clear that not only my publisher, but the vp above the publisher, were not about to hire anybody else for the newsroom because they were talking about which position to cut next. I finally gave up on the conversation.

I also recently was "surveyed" by a student calling on behalf of a journalism professor's study. More than half of the questions were worded in ways designed to produce a particular pattern of answers. The results of this "research" will be flawed. The student asking the questions was not happy when I bailed out before answering all the questions.

There are many intelligent, conscientious, interesting and even inspirational people in academia. There must be some other journalism professors out there who are as capable and insightful as fev. In the last couple of years, I haven't personally encountered any of them.

egable · **Joined:** Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:24 am **Posts:** 310

longwords wrote:

I also recently was "surveyed" by a student calling on behalf of a journalism professor's study. More than half of the questions were worded in ways designed to produce a particular pattern of answers. The results of this "research" will be flawed. The student asking the questions was not happy when I bailed out before answering all the questions.

That sounds better than the last J-school "survey" I responded to, in which most of the questions were so poorly worded as to be nearly impossible to answer in any meaningful way.

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:18 am

longwords wrote:

If their ideal candidate has a doctorate, it has probably been years since that person worked as a journalist on a daily basis, if ever.

At one time a paper I worked for had three people with PhDs on staff. They were some of the most effective people I've ever worked with.

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:59 am

I am a known critic of academia, especially when it comes to journalism. In this case I have to agree that the requirements seem to match the direction in which this business is headed.

BTW, I worked next to a copy editor with a Ph.D. for years. He covered education at the paper for a long time before being shunted to the copy desk in what was perceived as (and most likely was) punishment.

copynomad · **Joined:** Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:07 am **Posts:** 623

Quote:

Why the bias against Ph.D.s?

I'm biased against any journalism school or publication that requires a doctorate or other degree for openings. They're basically telling many great journalists to not bother applying, because they chose academics over journalism when it comes down to it. It's easier for great journalists to do what academics do than the other way around.

Editer · **Posted:** Sat Nov 03, 2007 6:09 pm

I find it both amusing and sad that some of the same people who scream bloody murder when told that a reporter, designer or receptionist or the publisher's nephew can naturally also edit copy will take the opposite position regarding their own qualifications for other people's jobs.

There's more to a professorship than teaching how to commit journalism. Universities do lots of scholarly research and related work, and that's not something you pick up on the desk. No one hiring for a tenure-track job would take someone with no demonstrated interest or ability in that area.

The same is not true of untenured, usually temporary teaching jobs; we have some professionals teaching courses every semester. And some J-schools are purely professional in nature. When I got my master's degree from the U of Kansas I had more formal schooling than many of my teachers. Off the top of my head I can only think of one Ph.D. on the faculty (there were also a couple of J.D.s).

That school didn't do much research and didn't grant doctorates, so it didn't require terminal degrees of its applicants. But if part of your job is going to be steering Ph.D. students through their course of study, then you'd better be well acquainted with the process.

copynomad · **Joined:** Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:07 am **Posts:** 623

If someone can do investigative reporting, he can somehow manage to do "scholarly" work if he wants to pursue that track. I haven't seen such work that a reporter couldn't do. Journalism research isn't rocket science. Neither is newspapering. That's why I think it's laughable that people will go get master's degrees and doctorates to do either. Maybe if you want to be a top science writer you might want to get an advance degree in science, but that's specialized. I'm not against learning -- I've taken grad classes for enjoyment for years. But I know overkill when I see it.

Heartodixie · **Posted:** Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:30 pm

copynomad wrote:

If someone can do investigative reporting, he can somehow manage to do "scholarly" work if he wants to pursue that track. I haven't seen such work that a reporter couldn't do. Journalism research isn't rocket science. Neither is newspapering. That's why I think it's laughable that people will go get master's degrees and doctorates to do either. Maybe if you want to be a top science writer you might want to get an advance degree in science, but that's specialized. I'm not against learning -- I've taken grad classes for enjoyment for years. But I know overkill when I see it.

Hear hear. The "scholarly" approach of professors and consultants is a big reason the mission of newspapers has gotten lost amid all the junk readership, trend and design data the experts have been pushing for the past 20 years.

fev · **Joined:** Tue Nov 15, 2005 1:04 pm **Posts:** 371

Quote:

If someone can do investigative reporting, he can somehow manage to do "scholarly" work if he wants to pursue that track. I haven't seen such work that a reporter couldn't do.

I have. But then again, I read a lot of newspaper coverage of public opinion surveys, and judging from those, I don't see why reporters are allowed to do journalism, either.

"Investigative reporting" covers about as wide a range of topics and methods as does "scholarship." Sometimes they overlap. In a great many cases, they don't. I know more academics who are good depth interviewers than reporters who can run a repeated-measures ANOVA, but neither skill is a necessary or sufficient condition for knowing your arse from a hole in the ground.

Both camps would be better served if there were less ill-informed sniping and more interest in understanding that journalism and scholarship have some fundamental purposes in common: Find out some interesting and important stuff. Kill pine trees. Convince somebody to print (a) on (b).

You can blame academics for the decline of journalism all you want. Or you can blame fluoridation. Same logical falllacy.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:11 pm

I know and know of many fine journalists who are also PhDs. But the "University at Albany" is practically begging for a bust with that job description.

copynomad · **Joined:** Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:07 am **Posts:** 623

fev, that's exactly it: a doctorate doesn't make for a good journalism prof any more than a journalism degree makes someone a good journalist. but by requiring a doctorate, schools automatically rule out many good candidates.

i don't consider having an opinion contrary to others' as "sniping." but then my skin is thick. i've got nothing against anyone doing any job in newspapers, no matter what his education, as long as he can do the work well. ditto with teaching.

my opinion is relatively disinterested: i've no interest in joining academia -- the idea makes my eyes cross. in general, i'd like to see the quality of journalism and journalism education improve. that seems unlikely if J schools rule out many good journalists as profs.

Editer · **Posted:** Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:57 pm

copynomad: You seem to be assuming that teaching ability is the only thing a J-school should be looking for in its faculty hires. That's only part of the equation. Like it or not, universities are also research institutions, and any uni worth its salt will look for new hires who can hit the ground running. That means a track record of scholarly work. As fev pointed out, many (perhaps most) journalists can't understand a simple opinion poll; are they going to hold their own in a research environment? Right.

As I said earlier, the situation is different for schools that only have professional tracks. If you were suddenly overcome with the unquenchable desire to teach, such a school would probably hire you inside of a second. Most of my J-teachers came to the school that way.

So if all you want from a journalism professor is classroom wizardry, you don't need to look for an advanced degree. But the more they'll be asked to do, the more they'll be expected to bring to the table.

copynomad · **Joined:** Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:07 am **Posts:** 623

naw, i get that research is part of the teaching deal. i just don't agree that you need a doctorate to do it, inept journalists notwithstanding. but i also disagree with many journalists that you need a degree to do our jobs.

i teach sometimes, but it's not something i want to do regularly. i'd lose interest, and that would shortchange students.

fev · **Joined:** Tue Nov 15, 2005 1:04 pm **Posts:** 371

SUNY-A might do quite well with that posting. I know some people in the PhD pipeline who are serious, kick-ass copyeds and dedicated journalists whose research interests happen to lie in that area. If somebody can convince them that the students will show up and pay attention, and that the teaching and research expectations aren't too brutal, we could have a happy meeting of search committee and candidate.

Teaching is a very, very different sort of skill from functioning well in a newsroom. Doing research is a whole different skill from either. None of them are better or worser than any of the rest. They're all ways in which, if we're lucky, we get to make some difference in whether people are mildly stupider or mildly smarter than they were the previous day.

Nomad, apologies if I seemed a bit snappy, and I'll be happy to buy the first round if we have a chance to talk in person. But my basic attitude toward people who say they've never seen a piece of research a reporter couldn't do is a lot like my attitude toward old ladies who call the copydesk to say "If you don't have anyone who can speak proper English, I'll be happy to edit your newspaper for you":

Here's the keys. Call me when you're done.

longwords · **Posted:** Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:10 am

From an August news release at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism site on the University of Maryland Web site, quoting Thomas Kunkel:

Quote:

â€¢ Nearly 70 percent say their universities â€œalwaysâ€ or â€œalmost alwaysâ€ expect them to fill a faculty position with someone holding a Ph.D., even if that job is specifically meant to deliver practical skills. That pressure too, they report, has increased markedly in the past five years.

Quote:

He also sees a growing conflict in the need for more media-skills experts at the same time that universities are pushing schools to hire Ph.D. holders almost exclusively. â€œThe digital world is so new that there are people who study it and people who do it, but few who are accomplished at both,â€ he said.

Finally, it is my understanding that universities that educate Ph.D. students in journalism are not doing so to provide journalists. They are doing so to provide researchers and teachers, who will learn how to research in the course of earning the doctorate ,but may or may not learn the most effective ways of teaching. The student who receives the doctorate has been prepared to enter academia, not journalism. If someone with a Ph.D. can inhabit both worlds, that probably says more about his or her skills than academia in general.

I don't think just any reporter or copy editor will make a capable journalism professor, particularly at a research university.

My objection is that there is too much focus on credentials in the job posting. In general -- not just in respect to journalism -- I think credentialism is economically and possibly intellectually harmful now because the cost of obtaining credentials burdens students and their families with debt but does not guarantee entree into a job that will defray the debt.

In addition, a college degree does not guarantee students will have learned the skills they need when they start work in journalism, so students are also under great pressure to have internships, even though there are fewer and fewer available.

I believe there are major problems facing journalism, the education of journalists, and the business management of journalism. The college-level journalism program that can find someone brilliant who understands those problems and can, with his or her colleagues, provide future journalists with the linguistic, logical, mathematical and technical skills they need will earn my admiration. The person who pushes jargon-laden drivel down the throats of reluctant freshmen will not earn my admiration.

copynomad · **Joined:** Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:07 am **Posts:** 623

fev, no worries. i prefer when people say what they think, especially when we disagree. otherwise, i could just listen to the stuff that's already in my head. but then again, i never refuse a drink.

the old ladies (my last call was from a guy who sounded middle aged) don't bother me. when they're right, they're right. i say thanks. when not, shrug, but thanks for caring.

i agree that we all get to help make people less stupid. but mostly, i do the job because it's fun and it makes me less stupid. course, the older i get, the stupider i realize i am.

Editer · **Posted:** Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:21 am

Noted. I agree in principle, but these days the usual way you show you can do the research is to earn a doctorate.

Note that the ad that started this whole thing did not require a Ph.D. if a candidate had other qualifications -- essentially, evidence of scholarly acumen, I suspect. I also suspect that a newly minted Ph.D. who didn't get some teaching experience along the way will not be seriously considered.

I don't doubt that most good journalists could do scholarly work. But if they want to join the faculty they'll need to show evidence. We don't take things on faith; we should expect the same of others.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:49 am

Phillip Blanchard wrote:

I know and know of many fine journalists who are also PhDs. But the "University at Albany" is practically begging for a bust with that job description.

Unless of course the university has someone in mind already, which is entirely possible.

copynomad · **Joined:** Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:07 am **Posts:** 623

Editer wrote:

We don't take things on faith; we should expect the same of others.

Editer, going on faith vs. getting a doctorate is a false choice. There's plenty of room in between to show someone can do research. It doesn't help education of any sort if we limit profs to the same mold.

Editer · **Posted:** Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:19 pm

copynomad wrote:

Editer, going on faith vs. getting a doctorate is a false choice. There's plenty of room in between to show someone can do research. It doesn't help education of any sort if we limit profs to the same mold.

I agree it's a false choice; I didn't pose it.

copynomad · **Joined:** Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:07 am **Posts:** 623

OK, I was going by your messages. Great if I'm wrong about what you've been saying. I hope you and others on your faculty act accordingly. Because as someone else mentioned, most schools are filling tenure jobs with such a mold. As you mentioned, there are separate tracks for J academia -- professional vs. research. I think the separation of the two is a bad idea. Basically, you have many people who think in the doctorate mold shaping J schools across the country. The increasing pressure to have a doctorate to get tenure basically narrows the pool of candidates. As with newsrooms, it's not a good idea to draw narrowly.

Editer · **Posted:** Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:27 pm

What I've been saying is that, to quote myself, evidence of scholarly acumen is and should be a requirement for someone seeking to be paid to do scholarly work.

What a discussion we've had -- a university posts a want ad for a journalism professor indicating that experience and achievement can substitute for a doctorate, and practically everyone in this thread starts bashing them. (The original poster's selective quotation didn't help matters any.) Post after post rails against the short-sighted academics, when we don't even have an example at hand. Frankly, I don't see much scholarly *or* journalistic acumen on display.

Most of the Ph.D.s I know would have at least read the whole ad before yelling.

copynomad · **Joined:** Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:07 am **Posts:** 623

scholarly work is subjective. i've seen work done by academics that doesn't appear scholarly at all, same as we've all seen crappy journalism. again, we're still stuck with a narrow pool of people shaping J school education. not good.

and at no point did i bash people with doctorates. i just don't see why we need to keep narrowing J education.

Bakelite · **Posted:** Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:59 am

longwords wrote:

I also recently was "surveyed" by a student calling on behalf of a journalism professor's study. More than half of the questions were worded in ways designed to produce a particular pattern of answers. The results of this "research" will be flawed. The student asking the questions was not happy when I bailed out before answering all the questions.

Was this the University of Missouri study? The student who called me apologized after the interview was over for the nature of the questions. For him, at least, it was a learning opportunity.

miss msry · **Posted:** Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:24 pm

If they are looking for a PhD in a discipline other than Journalism, then I can see the point.

Testy Copy Editors

Ideal candidate has lost touch with journalism

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links