| Home |
 |
|
| About JourNet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Membership |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Join us |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Events |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My presentation reviews the terrain of journalism education in the light of the basic developments around media and journalism today. I shall also bring a perspective of the contemporary higher education reform in Europe. My conclusions include both general points and one concrete proposal.
Notes on media and journalism today
This is a rehearsal of much that has been said already at this conference and what we all as experts of media and journalism know already. Nevertheless, it is always useful to reflect upon the changes – and constants – in our field. Here is my reading of what are the essential features in media and journalism today.
Regarding the general development of the media I wish to highlight three prospects:
Firstly, I subscribe to what Frank Morgan said in his opening remarks concerning the growing importance of media in all areas of life, not only in industrialized but increasingly also in developing countries. Media seem to be capturing more and more power; media-related matters including media education are becoming more and more decisive. This does not necessarily mean that we get more money for communication education as we know all too well, but anyhow media seem to be an aspect of history, whose importance is growing. Where this power lies and whom it benefits are another matter; suffice it here to state that media constitute a kind of sunrise industry in world history.
Secondly, due to the technological developments, so ably reviewed by Ridha Najar, the boundaries are dissolving between different media and between media and the rest of culture, economy and other aspects of society. The structures of media are changing, too, and this is happening not only within the media and editorial offices but also throughout the whole media ownership system with its vertical and horizontal structures.
Let me make here a footnote which I find indicative of the potential for change in media structures, based on what I heard from an American media consultant three years ago. She had visited the Globo Corporation right after the Sydney Olympics and was presented with a corporate dilemma: altogether 50 newspapers and radio-tv stations owned by the company throughout Latin America had sent their reporters to cover the games, each operating separately and suffering from lack of resources, while this could have been done jointly by perhaps only 20 reporters with technical support and a highly qualified processing team at Latin American headquarters, feeding the individual outlets. This had led the corporate strategists to a thought experiment by turning around the present system of independently operating units under local barons called editors and publishers, replacing that by a centralised structure under one big unit commanded by a single media “czar”. The suggestion was that this would have been better both in terms of economic cost and performance quality.
This thought experiment has not yet been implemented but it shows us what potentially can be done by these huge conglomerates to change the media structures – and not necessarily to the detriment of quality. Better quality and greater diversity could be achieved through a centralized structure and management, while the existence of numerous independent units in a formally free marketplace does not necessarily guarantee diversity. This reasoning has always been part and parcel of public service broadcasting philosophy.
Thirdly, the information and communication technology – or “Nokia syndrome” as I might say coming from the birthplace of that company – becomes so central an element of life that it no longer appears as a big issue. According to futurologists for example in Japan, ICT will be less sexy in 20 years just as electricity has become over the last 100 years. It becomes so important, so salient that it ceases to be special. We will no longer have distinct ICT companies as we do today, because ICT will pervade (post)industrial life. The digital revolution in media is a passing stage in world history: this page will soon be turned. Of course technology is crucial and has its impact but it will not retain its present-day distinction and appeal.
And now from media to journalism as a profession. Here I also have three points to make:
Firstly, professionalism has been increasing over the past 50 years. More skills and greater competence are both needed and guaranteed in journalistic production. A new mindset seems to be entering into the journalistic professional world with an increasingly multimedia approach. So far we have been monomedia oriented with newspapers, radio, television, etc. each in its own pigeonhole, but these thinking paths will become increasingly outdated and replaced by the multimedia mindset. This does not only mean mastering the skills of various media but is a fundamentally different paradigm of working and thinking.
Secondly, professionalism does not only bring about good for journalism as it is typically understood but also gives rise to serious problems for democracy. The more competent and powerful you are as a professional, the more you become a prisoner of your own professional thinking at risk of alienation from so-called ordinary people. It is the dilemma of elitism and alienation from the social realities which is not good for democracy – something that I call “fortress journalism syndrome”.
Part of this process is the development whereby journalism becomes less overtly political. I happen to believe that journalism remains equally political if not more political, but the nature of the politics is different; it is more invisible and insidious. In any case nowadays most of the message content of mainstream media is non-news by nature. Much of this non-news represents tabloid journalism and the kind of dumbing down material, which is clearly in contradiction to the historical view of journalism as part of democracy and enlightenment. On the other hand, much of this non-news material is made up of serious background stories and feature articles which do continue to serve the democratic cause. Moreover, industrially produced news is not necessarily conducive to democracy, either. It often is often beset by the same dilemma as smooth professionalism: it alienates the audiences and creates an illusion of factual coverage of the world, while in reality you are surrounded by a another form of ideology. So non-news does not simply mean bad for democracy and news does not necessary mean good for democracy. The relations are more complicated but the point is that changing journalism and media are delicately related to problems of democracy – and those problems are serious indeed.
Thirdly, there is the question about the end of journalism at this time of digital abundancy and overkill: Doesn't live coverage and online news render the gatekeepers and storytellers called journalists obsolete? My answer is: No, processing raw materials and packaging them into user-friendly forms demands more rather than less journalistic input and therefore journalism is now needed more than ever. This is not just the wishful thinking of educators and experts; it has also been shown by empirical studies demonstrating the demand of the public how people do need predigested material of this ever more complicated world. Despite the popularity of tabloid materials and various kinds of reality television, there is a thirst for information including objective information as we have seen not only in matters of conflict and terrorism but also in matters of economy, ecology and so on. And this thirst is not only satisfied by the digitally facilitated supply of information with countless new sources, online and other. What people need for their world view is not only encyclopedic material but also overviews and comment – both objective from trusted sources and opinionated from stimulating sources. This is journalism in its purest form and there is no reason to believe that it has had its day.
Summarising the developments of both media and the journalistic profession, we can say that while there is no end of journalism in sight, future journalists will work typically in a multimedia environment – including conglomerates governed by a “czar” instead of conventional editors and publishers. Converging digital media structures lead to diversification of journalistic skills propelling the profession into different directions. One of these directions is online information seekers and processors in a corporate centre serving several media simultaneously, while another trend is to have specialists at each media end to edit the products for local users. This development will not do away with the need for profound knowledge of various areas of life and society; on the contrary, there is a growing need for substantial competence boosting serious and “elite” journalism.
Then there is the well-known trend towards tabloidization, whereby serious news and information are accompanied by human interest and entertainment material, leading to “infotainment”. Also, fact and fiction are mixed against the conventional wisdom of journalism, leading to “faction”. These are challenges to be taken seriously but I think it is very short-sighted to use them as arguments to declare a doomsday for journalism. Consequently, my overall thesis is that the so-called Information Society will not render journalism obsolete, but it poses challenges and creates uncertainties. Some call them “cyber revolutions” while others take them as normal evolution, and in both camps there are those who approach them with enthusiasm and optimism as well as those whose approach is pessimism or cynicism. The real roots of the challenge go deeper than the mear technical surface of digitalization. Unfortunately the academic and political field is short of analytical understanding about what is really going on, while there is no shortage of confusion.
After these prospects it is logical to remember on journalism ethics, media performance and the tasks which media are supposed to fulfil in society – in short, the normative roles of media. This area of professional debate and scholarship has not been buried under new technologies and globalisation. Quite the reverse, it has revived with projects which are effectively rewriting the outdated “four theories of the press”.
I am involved in one such project, which suggests a different articulation into four. This project divides the paradigmatic thinking into four leading ideas which dominated certain stages of history: corporatist (the search for public wisdom, 500 BC – 1500 AD), libertarian (the search for personal freedom, 1500-1800), social responsibility (the growth of popular democracies, 1800-1960), and citizen’s participation (the rise of postmodern cultures, 1960-2000). Each of them is alive and well and feeds contemporary media ideologies – not least the old corporatist thinking which typically dominates professionalism in “fortress journalism” with a rigid modernist paradigm wrapped under the guise of “independent media” and “objective journalism”. The project also introduces four ways of defining the role of the media in relation to socio-political power: cooperation, surveillance, facilitation and radical challenge.
My point here is, firstly, to note the irony of these kinds of philosophical reflections gaining popularity at the digital era. In other words, the Nokia syndrome, instead of killing is stimulating the cause of back to basics. Secondly, it is this level of basic theorising, instead of ICT fever, that will help to dispel the confusion referred to above.
Perspectives on higher education in Europe
All university people in Europe today speak about “Bologna”. This site of Europe's oldest university has become a buzzword for the latest reform of higher education in this part of the world due to a document signed in June 1999 by 29 Ministers of Education from various European countries, the Bologna Declaration. It confirmed an initiative taken one year earlier in the Sorbonne by the Ministers of Education of France, Germany, Italy and the UK. Bologna was followed up by another meeting of Ministers of Education in Prague in May 2001, now attended by 32 ministers who adopted a joint communiqué. The most recent ministerial conference on higher education in Europe was held in Berlin in September 2003, attended by 33 European ministers, including Russia, leading to another communiqué. (For these documents, see http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/).
This reform seeks to replace the different systems of higher education in European countries by a common “European Higher Education Area” (EHEA) and to create both a competitive and attractive market for academic studies in Europe compared to the USA. What is called for is both a rejuvenation of the often outdated academic systems – as happened in France in 1968 – and also a push of the typically independent academia to serve more directly the needs of the European labor market. The reform is already underway and is to be completed within the next five years.
A central idea is to establish a Europe-wide system of comparable degrees, with the first degree (Bachelor) no less than 3 years and the second degree (Master) ideally a further 2 years, followed eventual by a doctoral degree in 4 more years. Thus the basic model: 3 + 2 + 4 years. The Master’s degree is expected to be reached after 5 but at least 4 years of studies. Measured with a common European Credit Transfer System (ECTS points), the first degree is 180 points and the second degree 120 points, altogether 300 points.
The first degree cycle (BA) is supposed to equip the student with basic competence for the labour market, but more specialised academic skills will be given by the second cycle (MA). The policy target for example in my own country, Finland, is that 75 % of the BAs will continue to MA. This is quite different from the US system where only a minority of some 15 % continue their studies to Master’s level. It remains to be seen whether European economies are able to achieve that ambitious target.
Regarding studies in communication, media and journalism, the reform proceeds in both BA and MA levels. In many countries (such as mine) this does not mean revolutionary changes, because a two-level degree system has already been in place. But in other countries (such as Spain) it will fundamentally shake the old system. In any case the reform gives a welcome boost for journalism education to review its curricula. (For a review, see http://home.pi.be/eccr/BolognaReport.pdf).
Conclusions for journalism education
How to characterise and label these developments?
Two keywords are obvious: opportunities and threats – the last two elements in familiar SWOT analysis. It is symptomatic how Abdul Waheed Kahn built his opening address on these two perspectives (referring to threats as challenges), as did Ridha Najar in his paper. And there is a clear contradiction between these perspectives.
This is indeed a field of contradictions and paradoxes – the other two keywords. I cannot deliver a singe talk or lecture nowadays without mentioning the word paradox or contradiction. Developments especially relating to media technologies are full of contradictions but so are also the general socio-political and cultural developments in the world. Accordingly, there are no longer clear black and white answers, but more and more questions, challenges, and reasoning “on the one hand, on the other hand”. Saying this doesn’t mean that I have turned liberal from being an old radical. On the contrary, I think that a true radical today is a kind of dialectic; we have reverted to the old dialectics.
What actions should we take?
Firstly, an obvious conclusion is that we need to consolidate JourNet. It is vital in this contemporary situation to promote networking between journalism educators. There are thousands of colleagues and institutions, which need to be networked and supported by the synergy of contacts and cooperation, both in analysis and action.
Secondly, I have a specific proposal: to begin preparing a Unesco Recommendation for journalism education. Such universal instruments have been made for a number of areas but not for the field of media and journalism. Initiated by JourNet and drafted together with all professional and academic circles, a Unesco Recommendation could become an important instrument in promoting the objectives of JourNet and doing exactly what Abdul Waheed Kahn advocated at the end of his address. |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| Content Language |
English |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| Publication year |
11-05-2005 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
