We are all out of date
Radical change requires radical reform. As journalism and communication have turned upside down, education programmes need to stay current.
Published: 02:07 PM,Jul 10,2024 | EDITED : 06:07 PM,Jul 10,2024
One may argue that journalism is losing its luster in this murky world of events. We have propaganda, advertising, but no journalism. We live in naive realism, where we believe we know the truth.
Politicians and media influencers flood the public sphere with narratives of enemies and tailored interests. Events are receiving a weaponised storytelling approach. By the time we start making sense of what is happening around the world, new developments have us swaying into space. There is hardly time to reflect on the immediate social, economic, and political changes.
We live in a vulnerable and easily manipulated time in a world gripped by absurdity. Journalism has become one of the victims of such craziness.
Communicators can be trained to create psychological products for a target audience, modeled on advertising campaigns that stir up emotions. At the same time, journalists are expected to achieve objectivity and accuracy while occasionally balancing between objectivity and advocacy, or sensitivity and objectivity.
A communicator is tasked with serving the interests of organisations or individuals they represent, emphasising specific messages whereas a journalist (ideally) writes accurately a good and factual story.
Journalism and mass communication are not just interrelated and overlapping fields of study. Both have an impact on global society, culture, politics, and economy, yet they serve different purposes.
From my perspective as a journalist and academic, teaching journalism is far different than working in a newsroom. Theorists bring to the classroom a selection of scholarly information and insights from practitioners. Professional journalists bring to the classroom their skills developed in the newsroom. Different universities place different priorities on practice and theory. However, unlike academics, journalists don’t often have time to reflect on their work.
Current shifts in journalism run deeper than merely technological transformations. With adaptations and evolution happening, and the increased use of psychological tactics in communication, the question is what journalism and media students should be learning. How are media educators adapting their courses and programmes to meet shifting media environments and new demands?
For example, an evolutionary psychology and biology paradigm is producing fresh approaches to the processes and impacts of strategic communication–how individuals engage with and are influenced by media content and technology. Heart rate measurement and facial muscle activation are part of psychophysiology for understanding and better evaluating narrative engagement.
Journalism and technology are in a gradual process of transformation, so can academia lead to a change in practice? Are students gaining exposure to cutting-edge technologies while at the same time developing critical thinking, and an inquisitive mind? How tangible is the preparation of future journalists’ abilities to add value while working alongside machines? It’s been a long time since students would transcribe lectures rather than internalise what was being said.
Future journalists face many challenges, and a serious one is the politicisation of news. Cubs, the newcomer to the field, will lack the ‘nose’ to detect the weaponisation of a narrative, and much less the ability to comprehend subtle psycho strategies. A novice reporter will try to apply whatever he has learned at school. Most likely, the cub will use open sources to craft a gentle, amusing story or delegate the effort to artificial intelligence techniques.
As in many dynamic fields, journalists need constant learning and adaptation due to industry trends, audience preferences, and evolving technology. However, perhaps there are more hurdles in journalism and media education than in the practice of reporting.
Radical change requires radical reform. As journalism and communication have turned upside down, education programmes need to stay current. In education, institutions need long-term investment plans, the ability to foresee future change and demand, and be prepared for the challenge of hiring faculty expertise.
In such a progressive context, I wonder where we can build a bridge.
Politicians and media influencers flood the public sphere with narratives of enemies and tailored interests. Events are receiving a weaponised storytelling approach. By the time we start making sense of what is happening around the world, new developments have us swaying into space. There is hardly time to reflect on the immediate social, economic, and political changes.
We live in a vulnerable and easily manipulated time in a world gripped by absurdity. Journalism has become one of the victims of such craziness.
Communicators can be trained to create psychological products for a target audience, modeled on advertising campaigns that stir up emotions. At the same time, journalists are expected to achieve objectivity and accuracy while occasionally balancing between objectivity and advocacy, or sensitivity and objectivity.
A communicator is tasked with serving the interests of organisations or individuals they represent, emphasising specific messages whereas a journalist (ideally) writes accurately a good and factual story.
Journalism and mass communication are not just interrelated and overlapping fields of study. Both have an impact on global society, culture, politics, and economy, yet they serve different purposes.
From my perspective as a journalist and academic, teaching journalism is far different than working in a newsroom. Theorists bring to the classroom a selection of scholarly information and insights from practitioners. Professional journalists bring to the classroom their skills developed in the newsroom. Different universities place different priorities on practice and theory. However, unlike academics, journalists don’t often have time to reflect on their work.
Current shifts in journalism run deeper than merely technological transformations. With adaptations and evolution happening, and the increased use of psychological tactics in communication, the question is what journalism and media students should be learning. How are media educators adapting their courses and programmes to meet shifting media environments and new demands?
For example, an evolutionary psychology and biology paradigm is producing fresh approaches to the processes and impacts of strategic communication–how individuals engage with and are influenced by media content and technology. Heart rate measurement and facial muscle activation are part of psychophysiology for understanding and better evaluating narrative engagement.
Journalism and technology are in a gradual process of transformation, so can academia lead to a change in practice? Are students gaining exposure to cutting-edge technologies while at the same time developing critical thinking, and an inquisitive mind? How tangible is the preparation of future journalists’ abilities to add value while working alongside machines? It’s been a long time since students would transcribe lectures rather than internalise what was being said.
Future journalists face many challenges, and a serious one is the politicisation of news. Cubs, the newcomer to the field, will lack the ‘nose’ to detect the weaponisation of a narrative, and much less the ability to comprehend subtle psycho strategies. A novice reporter will try to apply whatever he has learned at school. Most likely, the cub will use open sources to craft a gentle, amusing story or delegate the effort to artificial intelligence techniques.
As in many dynamic fields, journalists need constant learning and adaptation due to industry trends, audience preferences, and evolving technology. However, perhaps there are more hurdles in journalism and media education than in the practice of reporting.
Radical change requires radical reform. As journalism and communication have turned upside down, education programmes need to stay current. In education, institutions need long-term investment plans, the ability to foresee future change and demand, and be prepared for the challenge of hiring faculty expertise.
In such a progressive context, I wonder where we can build a bridge.