A response to '‘Four Excuses That Impede Change in Media Academia’

At the edge of the Namib desert where the Swakob River empties, periodically, into the Atlantic Ocean, settlers in 1892 founded a town which many still today describe as 'more German than Germany'.

It's a place where the pioneers, mostly cut off from the developments das Vaterland sought (seek?) to perpetuate the culture as they remembered it.

The architecture, the bakeries and pubs are all wonderful examples of early 20th century Europe and seem untouched by either the changes on that continent or the cultures of the rest of Africa, which lies beyond the Namib desert.

In much the same way, too many media academics that I encounter on both sides of the Atlantic seek to perpetuate the norms and values of a time that no longer exists. And, yes, as Vin Crosbie points out in his column, ‘Four Excuses That Impede Change in Media Academia’ , it's often done with the best of intentions. And not all the outcomes are lamentable either (if you're ever in Swakopmund, try the fine beer and delicious baked goods). But, whatever else it is, it’s not fit for progress.

To change that will not only take a radical review of the curricula, as Vin suggests, but also a revolution of the culture in the journalistic establishment- newsrooms & the institutions that support them. That needs to start with the banishment of the common belief that no one outside the fraternity says anything worth listening to.

Consider, for example, the open disdain with which many journalism trainers (I hesitate using the word 'academics') regard their colleagues in media studies departments, where they do not simply perpetuate 'best' journalistic practice, but dare to examine the consequences of those actions. Similar attitudes apply to those who condescend to consider the market value of journalistic endeavour.

This particular brand of anti-intellectualism, I firmly believe after more than 20 years of working in and with newsrooms and universities in the US, South Africa and the UK, has resulted in the knowledge cul-de-sac that has contributed to the not-so-slow suicide of large sections of the mainstream industry in the US and elsewhere.

So it would be simplistic to suggest that out-moded academic curricula are the consequences of journalism departments that are cut off from the changes in industry. Instead, it's because, much like Swakopmund, the journalistic establishment has long made a virtue of isolating itself from everyone else. And while it was largely a matter of geography for the early setters of that patch of German South-West Africa, for much of the mainstream media industry its mostly a matter of mindset.

Yet another edition of Writing for the Media in the works [and other cliches]

First this: My first writing tutor at university, Rosalie de Rosset, tried to instill in me a phobia of clichés, which she would ridicule without mercy. So it's with trepidation that I ask that you - and she - indulge me in this post

No one can be more surprised than I am (cliché 1) that the text I pull together in those months before South African's first democratic election is still considered useful enough to would-be journalists and trainers that the publishers want yet another edition.

A recent letter from folks at Oxford University Press noted that Writing for the Media 3e is being used at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Central University of Technology, University of the Free State, Johannesburg University, Tshwane University of Technology, University of Pretoria, University of South Africa, Vaal University of Technology, Durban Institute of Technology, University of KwaZulu Natal, University of Zululand, University of Venda, North West University, Cape Peninsula University of Technology and the University of Cape Town.

I'm aware that much, perhaps the most, of the book's value is due to the input from colleagues across the industry in South Africa and further afield. I'll again be knocking on doors for input and, if all goes well, the 4th edition will be published in the months before this country's third general election. A gap of about 14 years.

Of course, a great deal has changed, in the country and in our industry. I’ll certainly be looking more closely at how technology has changed our media landscape and specifically how once-clear divisions between “professional” and “popular” communication merge and blend online as traditional differences between message senders and receivers, producers and consumers are replaced by a vast, fluid, ongoing, multi-voiced discourse (Burnett and Marshall, 2003).

The networked digital environment has meant an end to media forms that are discrete or concrete. With it has come the blurring of the boundaries between journalists and their audiences as millions of individuals and organizations have discovered and begun to exercise the ability to interact and express themselves online. Journalists and audiences are is becoming intertwined in complex and little-understood ways. Tricky stuff.

On the other hand [need to get my clichés quotient up], I’m also mindful of Solomon’s wisdom- "there’s nothing new under the sun" - and will aim to highlight those elements which are constant, such as the human need for news and information that can assist with decision-making and social cohesion.

Clearly, putting together the next edition of this text will be no small challenge. And so these final clichés – which are no less true for that - all comments, suggestions or contributions will be most welcome. My copy deadline is February 2008. So, I, er, we had better get to it.