Columbia Journalism Professor: Fuck New Media
from the playing-with-toys-indeed dept
Well, well, well. You want to know why some journalists seem to be having so much trouble adapting to a changing marketplace? Perhaps it’s because the folks who are teaching them their trade are equally as clueless. We’ve certainly seen it before, but this latest one is pretty stunning. Jay Rose points us to the news that Columbia journalism professor Ari Goldman, who also is the coordinator for the school’s big “Reading & Writing I” class (a core component at what’s considered to be the top of the top in journalism schools), told his class on the first day: “Fuck new media” and said that new media training was just “playing with toys.”
While his point (as clarified later) is clearly that journalism skills, by themselves, are separate from understanding new media (i.e., you can learn important journalism skills that have nothing to do with new media), it still highlights how poorly he’s preparing some of these students (most, we’d hope, know better on their own). To be a successful journalist these days, will require a closer connection to the community — and that’s going to be done via these new media tools. Pretending that the process of doing journalism is entirely the same with or without these tools is wrong. The entire nature of journalism is changing, and those who say “fuck new media” may discover it works the other way around.
Filed Under: ari goldman, journalism, new media
Comments on “Columbia Journalism Professor: Fuck New Media”
If his point is that students need to learn the basics of journalism then I can see his point. I can understand a math teacher would say “fuck calculators, learn how to do it yourself first.” My daughters 2nd grade teacher didn’t appreciate me saying “that’s what spell check is for” when discussing her spelling progress.
I have a feeling that was the Columbia professors point, they generally are not known for sticking with conservative thoughts.
Re: Re:
But that IS what spellcheck is for. OK, gor a 2nd grader MAYBE you’re still going over phonetic basics that are useful in basic reading and writing skills. But for the most part, beyond that, spelling skills tend to be highly over-rated. Most professions don’t require impeccable written skills, and the ones that do have tools to help you do it. That’s what tools are for.
Re: Re: Re:
Your write, if them tools don’t catch all mistakes whose going too notice?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Knot many people. I mean, they’ll see it, and maybe laugh at you, but your point will get across.
I didn’t say pelling skills were useless, just over-rated.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Also, it can be pointed out that your errors are gramatical, not spelling. Spelling would be choosing “misspelled” over “mispelled” or “wierd” over “weird.” And you’ll get the same effects of mispelling from many typo errors, regardless of your spelling skills. (See ‘gor’ above.)
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Actually, I chose the errors above to represent a mix of spelling, grammatical and typo errors. Even simple tools can identify misspellings such as “wierd” or “mispelled”, but the best of tools can’t catch many spelling, grammar and typo errors that can mascarade as other legitimate words.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Then you’re now arguing for proof-reading skills, not spelling. I’m afraid I’m not sure what your point is.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Dude, you need to give up on spelling and grammar and concentrate on your reading comprehension skills. He’s illustrating that the tools you mention are next to useless for the purpose you mention and most others.
You’re Wierd Harold aren’t you? You argue the same as he does. Everything goes over your head and you misinterpret and redirect every counter-argument off on another aside.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Art, did you choose to use “typo errors”? Why not just “typo”? Just curious.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Maybe in YOUR profession, but if I see written material from a company with spelling and/or grammatical errors, it severely dimishes my faith in that company’s quality. If they can’t be bothered to know the difference between “their”, “they’re” and “there”, what make me think they can tell the difference between, oh type A, B or AB blood?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
First, “their,” “they’re,” and “there” is a gramatical error, not spelling. all of those words are spelled correctly, even if you use them in the wrong context.
Second, whoever wrote the material you recieve likely isn’t the same one handling the blood. I’m a tech guy, my profession has little if anything to do with the people in Legal or Buisiness Affairs who’s job is to write up pretty statements. And I assure you, they spell great but they can’t write code worth squat.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Second, whoever wrote the material you recieve likely isn’t the same one handling the blood. I’m a tech guy, my profession has little if anything to do with the people in Legal or Buisiness Affairs who’s job is to write up pretty statements. And I assure you, they spell great but they can’t write code worth squat.
It indicates that the company hires incompetent people. That in turn casts doubt on the ones handling the blood or writing the code.
Re: Re:
In Capitalist America you don’t “fuck new media”, new media fuck you.
Re: Re: Re:
“In Capitalist America you don’t ‘fuck new media’, new media fuck you.”
I honor you with quoting . . . LOL
OK
Who wouldn’t want to. New media is so sexy!
I think I disagree
The qualities of good journalism are independant of the distribution media on which the final product is delivered. If this professors point is “good journalism is good journalism, regardless of how the product is distributed”, then I agree completely with him. I would be interested to know what tennants of quality journalism Mike thinks go out the window when the delivery medium goes from analog to digital?
Re: I think I disagree
Most of this misses the point. It’s not that newspapers are dead. I think it would be difficult to find some one that doesn’t enjoy flipping through a Sunday paper. The key is to match the content to the medium. Digital media are perfect for finding what you want to read. The Sunday paper is perfect for relaxing and wandering through. It’s nice to sit down with a cup of coffee and aimlessly read (or skip) whatever happens to be there.
Re: Re: I think I disagree
Hi. I don’t enjoy the Sunday paper. Or any paper, really. they keep throwing it on my lawn and I keep throwing it in the bin. Newspapers are now “Yesterday’s news today!” and I have better ways of relaxing.
Re: Re: I think I disagree
No, most of this is missing the point because new media isn’t really about “distributing a product” it’s about engaging the audience. Hell, it’s not even an audience anymore, it’s a community. The dynamics are drastically different. The old way is telling people what happened. The new way is having a conversation. Journalism still plays a part because a journalist has important information-oriented skills that an office worker or blue-collar guy doesn’t have, but it’s a different ball game.
Re: Re: I think I disagree
I think it would be difficult to find some one that doesn’t enjoy flipping through a Sunday paper.
Doesn’t look like it’s so difficult after all. I don’t read Sunday news papers at all. They’re incredibly dull, opinionated and full of propaganda.
The Sunday paper is perfect for relaxing and wandering through. It’s nice to sit down with a cup of coffee and aimlessly read (or skip) whatever happens to be there.
It may be perfect for you, but for many others it’s boring. I don’t want to wade through all the opinions I couldn’t care less about, the endless propaganda and the generally dull stories I have no interest in.
When I want news, I want it they way I like it and about things I’m interested in. The “old school” paper does not afford me any of that.
Re: Re: I think I disagree
“I think it would be difficult to find some one that doesn’t enjoy flipping through a Sunday paper. The key is to match the content to the medium. “
I think the issue for me (and maybe the professor) is that not all content is “journalism”. However, all content that could be defined as “good journalism” will contain the same basic properties, regardless of medium through which it is delivered. So “fuck new media” really means (if I have him correct), until you learn the basics of creating “quality journalism”, how you deliver it is irrelevent.
“Well, well, well. You want to know why some journalists seem to be having so much trouble adapting to a changing marketplace? Perhaps it’s because the folks who are teaching them their trade are equally as clueless.”
Unfortunate that is not limited to journalists.
One of the big undiscussed issues with the current market collapse is the failure of economics.
In the much of the study of economics there is normally considered to be 2 factors: capital (K) and labor (L).
Great results are achieved from this which plots well on a sheet of two dimension sheet of paper fut lack much in the realm of their being four factor inputs: capital (K), labor (L), natural resources (R) and entrepreneurial activity AKA profit (P).
Example of:
Capital (K) = Machine Tools
Labor (L) = Physical and mental doing of people
Natural resources (R) = Land usage and raw material
and the final
Entrepreneurial Activity AKA profit (P) = risk taking and organization structure.
The economic failure is that no consideration is given to work without structure produces useful products and that such structure must be responsive to people desired (demands) or it is useless.
Now before one gets wound up on these statements take a look at modern economic text micro and macro books where the four components of activity are acknowledged in the opening five pages followed with a two hundred pages of a two dimensional world not four.
Re: Re:
The economic failure is that no consideration is given to work without structure produces useful products and that such structure must be responsive to people desired (demands) or it is useless.
I don’t understand a word you just said.
Re: failure of economics
I think I follow your argument. Do you have any links to support it further?
So Over
Old Journalism died the minute the idea of reporting what is happening changed to “reporting according to your political world view”.
That happened a very long time ago.
Therefore anyone who can write and has eyes in his head or just an opinion can do what journalists do.
And that’s why newspapers are so over.
If I want to know what actually is going on in Iraq or Israel or Tibet I’d be much better served reading some blogger who was there or who currently lives there and doesn’t cater to anyone’s agenda.
I’d say that Professor failed miserably at his job and is continuing to do so – another argument to abolish the idea of academic tenure.
In mother Russia...
…new media fucks you!
Re: In mother Russia...
Thank you. I was waiting for that.
fuck him!
“New Media” particularly blogs and opinion sites such as this one give off the aura of fact when they are in reality nothing more than opinion supported by selected facts. True journalism requires checking sources and looking for the other side of the story.
Re: Re:
True journalism requires checking sources and looking for the other side of the story.
Having recovered from my laughing fit, let me ask you: when did you last read a newspaper, or watch the evening News? they are FAR MORE likely to “give off the aura of fact when they are in reality nothing more than opinion supported by selected facts,” rather than “looking for the other side of the story.”
Re: W.Harold
just like your lame website?
Re: Re: W.Harold
Differences is that the website is opinion, entirely, with no pretext to being fact or news, just my “incomplete view of the net”. I don’t try to cover it up and gloss it over by saying something like “excellence in broadcasting” or whatever Ann Coulter is calling her brand of hack blogging this week.
All this conversation
I agree with much of what Ano. Cow. is saying. It’s true, the way we have been taught to look at Economics (capital E) is flawed. It hasn’t changed because the models have worked. But all these models are falling apart… So many Economists get caught up in the numbers and the models and pay no attention to change, they ignore the little Gray Swans and until a massive Black Swan comes along, its all ignored.
As for media and newspapers sucking, as in the last comment, its true. They suck. they’re boring and chock full of jibberish. If I want local news, I have to search Twitter, because the local paper is talking about the same crap that the NYTimes is, but why? Why would I not just pull up an RSS feed or Google News and not pay a dime or waste the paper?
Enough ranting from me… I probably sound like an idiot by now anyway.
Re: All this conversation
Why would I not just pull up an RSS feed or Google News and not pay a dime or waste the paper?
Because they did all that work! They deserve to be paid. You’re a pretty loathsome person if you don’t give them your money after they worked so hard. There are costs associated with printing a newspaper, after all.
Compare to Other fields
The professor makes a very valid point. He is teaching an introductory college course. He needs to make the point that unless you learn the basics properly, you have no need to learn all the different mediums of publishing, that should be a Junior or Senior level focus. His statement forces them to keep thier eyes on the details of that class.
Comparing to other fields, that is the way teaching is done at colleges. If you want to be a mechanic, you go to a tech shool and then fix cars. If you want to design new cars, you go study mechanical engineering. In computer science we were taught all of our classes using no more than 5 different languages (Java, Assembly, Html, Cobol, Ada)… learning how to code was a small part of learning how to program, and when you get to the real world you usually have to learn a whole other code altogether. The difference between coding and programming is the core understanding of the process.
This professor, rightly, is getting his students to focus on the words, as the publishing (Paper/web/magazine/etc) is nothing without taking an event and putting it into words.
I applaud him for his drive to focus them on the core.
i actually read the article
and i think the professor’s point was that the basics of journalism are still valid regardless of the medium that they are employed in.
i think he could have phrased it differently, like “you’re here to learn about journalism, not how to design webpages.”
i tried to talk to the professor about it, but he just kept insisting that i get off his lawn. i thought it was kind of strange since we were in new york where lawns have been extinct for over a hundred years.
just cause its pretty and new..
He has a point.
Too often people equate the method of distribution and the message.
I teach graphic design, I have some students who are very technically savvy but lack a strong sense of design. Often I will have painters or traditional artists enroll in my courses who often succeed more readily then the “digital artists.” I can teach ANY monkey how to set up a blog, build a site, create an ad, use Photoshop, etc. If they do not understand the basics of design and artistic theory, they are lost. Same applies to journalism, if you are an effective communicator then your message will be heard, regardless of the medium you seek to distribute it.
On a personal note, I feel that most “new media” news sites… well they are attractive but little substance. Let journalists write and let the designers design.
Really?
Isn’t there better things this Columbia professor could be doing, like solving the horrific drug problem in his country?
Please do not
Please do not put swear words in the titles of your articles or I will be saying F— you to YOU!
So “fuck new media” really means (if I have him correct), until you learn the basics of creating “quality journalism”, how you deliver it is irrelevent.
^^ that guy and some of the first posters got it right. I had many friends go to the j school at columbia and thats exactly what hes saying. It’s a “‘Reading & Writing I’ class”, not a class teaching you how to deliver content and find your prospective audience. If you cant write worth s*** the who the f*** cares what you have to say regardless of the medium its distributed on.
In Soviet Russia, new media fucks you!
Fuck New Media
Even your own article shows that he did it to jolt students out of relying on new media alone: “his point…is clearly that journalism skills, by themselves, are separate from understanding new media.”
You focus on his hyperbole in order to create a story. Then you deflate your own story by admitting the premise of your story is wrong. Perhaps this writer and all editors involved need to take a few journalism classes?
The Medium is the Message
Shawn wrote:
“So “fuck new media” really means (if I have him correct), until you learn the basics of creating “quality journalism”, how you deliver it is irrelevent.”
Missing from this discussion is that each medium determines the assumptions and qualifications of its content. Many of the assumptions of traditional journalism were made possible by previous media of communication. For example, we are unconscious to the fact that the traditional formate of print journalism was determined by the early sourcing of “news” via the telegraph. Difficulties in transmission dictated that you put the most important information in the “lead” paragraph, with less important details to follow in order. The telegraph also had a lot to do with the brevity of style that came to be accepted as “objective,” a fact which Hemingway explored in his own writing style.
Just as “news” as its presented on television has little or nothing to do with the qualifications of print-based “news”, the journalistic product of digital media will evolve into something that will be completely different. Perhaps better, perhaps worse, but still different.
Adiction
Alcohol, one of the most frequently reported addictions, is a significant public health problem in the USA. Early identification is important and would aid in intervention for the pregnant woman who continues to drink and for the affected infant. To date, there isn’t a definitive test which identifies either alcohol abuse during pregnancy or newborns exposed to alcohol prenatally. The existing biomarkers can detect varying degrees of alcohol exposure but further research is needed to improve sensitivity/specificity and to validate these markers.
Drug Intervention Montana-Drug Intervention Montana
Re: Adiction
Nice article
————————————-
Drug Intervention Montana-Drug Intervention Montana
Columbia Journalism Professor: Fuck New Media
hello friends,
Now that KRON had the footage, what would the rest of the stations do as the story became a major ratings grab? They did what everyone else did, they went to Indybay and watched my video of the events, only they also decided to put excerpts from my video on television without asking my permission, providing any sort of attribution or offering compensation.
—————————————-
akhil
foreclosures–