The link above, to Jay’s PressThink blog, contains his transparent accounting of the story behind the spurious and specious story that James O’Keefe is trying to present as a “truth.” It also features the embedded video by O’Keefe.

First, my full support and admiration go to Jay and Clay, friends and colleagues, both of whom I deeply respect for their intellectual honesty and efforts to promote intellectual honesty among journalism students at NYU. The industrial mindset in journalism has never needed a deeper examination of the intellectual underpinnings of the entire field than right now. This is perhaps even more critical than the new digital skills and technology we teach, for these skills and tools must be applied with new methodologies and we must consider the deeper implications of the paradigm shift. It fundamentally changes what journalism itself is and the role it plays in the society writ large.

Second, I truly admire the high road Jay takes and applaud him for it. As one who challenges my classes and regularly offends my students and peers as I try to shake their foundations into examining their thinking and be critical of the thinking of others in our space, I would not back down from this in a second and my response would not nearly be as thoughtful or measured. Jay reveals the specious premise to the story and clearly shows there is nothing scandalous here at all. I too have suffered attacks, and anyone who fights in this space will eventually face someone who tries to discredit or silence them. Bravo.

Third, attacking intellectual honesty in journalism and education in this fashion is an assault on us all and the greater purpose journalism and education seek to address. The deeper implication of this kind of action is to discredit the critical voices in the space. Seeking to discredit and shame the process of critical thinking by calling it liberal — as if that in and of itself is a dirty word, we do have colleges of liberal arts and sciences after all — is preposterous. Mr. O’Keefe shows his own myopia in not understanding the Socratic dialogue or Hegelian dialectic in its natural environment, the halls of the academy.

Finally, nothing depicted here is shameful, what is embarrassing is how it is clumsily framed as shame by the sting operation and how they self identify as true journalists. Despite the sensationalist approach and editing, no one is really caught doing anything remotely inappropriate or saying anything incorrect or inaccurate. There is no liberal elite media conspiracy to expose, the context of the comments show Rosen and Shirky exposing their students to critical thinking that they will recognize themselves among the elite — in terms of their dedication to the pursuit of journalism and also their devotion to the consumption and processing of raw information and news at the highest level before disseminating it to a wider audience. They are not economically elite, they are elite in their situational awareness as being successful in their profession would require.

That O’Keefe and his operators think this is somehow scandalous shows why they actually fail — quite literally — at journalism school. They wouldn’t be able to pass the class, for they are not intellectually honest enough to recognize the material the professors are covering and discussing. It has absolutely nothing to do with their own personal political views, it has to do with that their strict adherence to their agenda closes their minds to accepting what reality in fact depicts, and instead their false consciousness dominates their perception. It is impossible to be a journalist as such, you can only be a propagandist for one ideological perspective… which is what James O’Keefe is recognized as by serious and thoughtful students of journalism.

                          

Mangaging technology for production and distribution of media content is a critical component to the success of any small or large business in a very dynamic market area. This course is a broad survey that highlights several aspects of relevant technology from the perspective of the media entrepreneur.

Overall, the objective of the course is to invest the media entrepreneur with a deep understanding and appreciation for the role technology plays in each and every area of a media business. The course should offer a substantial experience for the student that wishes to take a hands-on approach to focus in information technology or operations from a senior level. But, the course is also necessary for all students who will act as entrepreneurs or in an entrepreneurial environment where technology is a necessity in all levels of operating a business in the media marketspace.

                          

I said something to the effect that under our old guidelines or our new proposed guidelines or any guidelines pretty much anywhere, if I created the next facebook, I would not be granted tenure. But if I published an article about some esoteric aspect of that creation in an arcane peer-reviewed journal that is only subscribed to by a handful of libraries, that would count. 

The point I am trying to make is that the tenure process relies on external validators to assess and grant credibility, not just for scholarly work, but also for creative and professional work. The process does not account for the change in the communication paradigm where innovation is — creation of platforms, entrepreneurship, and meritocracy of analytic performance. I could create a journal and build a brand, it still wouldn’t count. I could make an amazing film, but it would have to be shown at a festival to count, even if it went viral and was seen by millions. I could write a best-seller, but the text book that goes out of date before it hits the shelves would count more. 

It is pretty hard to be the guy who teaches and speaks about the change in digital culture constantly, but if I was tenure-track, my job would depend on me publishing an article in a dying journal on ink and paper about it. See the irony? And I would probably have to not teach as much so I could do that. 

I am professional/teaching faculty with a mulit-year appointment, in some ways I serve at the pleasure of the Dean of my school, but I am annually reviewed by my faculty peers. When I first came back to the university world, I thought tenure was what I wanted because that’s the juice everyone drinks. Everyone always asks me if I am tenured when they find out I’m a professor. Everyone has their own ideas about it. And really, it seems to me that only people who have it really know what it is about. 

The more I learned about it, the more the thought of being on a tenure track made me nervous. It is an all or nothing bet on a moving target: You have roughly seven years to earn it and if you don’t do it in that time, you can’t be hired back into the school. There are multiple factors and different formulas that you can build in your portfolio to make the case for earning tenure when that time for review comes up, but the sands shift each year as the membership of the committees that review your portfolio change. It is political and inherently biased towards re-enforcing paradigms of certain types of academic persona – and using external peer review from other universities just means you are banking on the same type of culture at a different institution. It is an intranet coupled to an extranet. 

I told the faculty that when the choice was presented to me to either go for the multi-year appointment (which can be renewed indefinitely) or wait for a tenure track line to open up, it was not a hard choice. What does tenure get me? Job security? A sabbatical? A chance to serve on more committees? Is it really all that valuable? I need the money I make from my professional and consulting work to afford my teaching job. I couldn’t stand the revenue hit for not earning while I conducted a study and wrote articles about it. But don’t get me wrong, I am very scholarly and value scholarship highly. And, to be fair, our faculty is working hard to have our professional and creative work assessed highly along with scholarship. 

And yes, I would still seriously consider a tenure track position if one were offered to me, but honestly, I would prefer to conduct myself accordingly and continue to just do good work without worrying about the process and jumping through hoops and printing reams of paper for review binders every year. It is just work that takes me away from doing real work. If someone offered me tenure in recognition for the work I had done, I think that’s the way it should be. The reality of the situation is not so lofty as the scholarly devotees like to consider. If anyone pulls down big grants and industry money at any university, provosts have an inclination to create positions for them that have tenure. You don’t want to lose an employee that earns for you. If I created facebook and gave a big gift to the university, they’d give me an honorary degree when I gave the convocation address. This is not scandalous or unfair: This is how it works because it actually works. 

I consider myself luck to be on the faculty at AU. I love my job. I am proud of the work we do and the ground we break. I work with a great faculty. Many in the room gave me mad props for saying what I did and “keeping it real.” Tenure is not an effective incentive system to breed high performance. It is a series of grueling hoops that faculty must suffer through – the ultimate set of obstacles and assessments in a lifetime of homework, quizzes, papers, tests, comprehensives, and degrees. It is a legacy hierarchal system that is in desperate need of reform.

But I’m the rebel. The bomb thrower in the Ivory Tower. And the best thing about being in a university is that they like having people who do that. 

                          

“I don’t believe it when people say journalism is dead,” Schweitzer says. “I’m the one raising my hand saying, ‘No it’s not!’ I think it will always exist.”

But the question lingers. At USC, undergraduate tuition alone reaches $40,000, and, when taken with fees, books, room, board and other charges, a year’s cost can exceed $55,000. These days journalism schools around the country are often challenged to justify a mission that trains students at such a high cost for a collapsing industry that doesn’t even require a degree.

via What’s The Point Of Journalism School, Anyway? : NPR.

                          

Technology in the classroom [infographic] – Holy Kaw!.

                          

Liveblog of TBD/American University liveblogging workshop – @TBD Community | TBD.com.

                          

In addition to our own war stories of dealing with AEJMC standards and curriculum review processes, I’m hoping other educators also engaged in this important work will share their thoughts, successes and obstacles by posting comments to this thread.

Thanks for sharing!

                          

Ex-newspaper industry executive Alan Mutter coined the phrase “journicide” to describe the “looming, lost generation” of young reporters abandoning the profession due to “vanishing employment opportunities and shrinking freelance compensation.” Along with the recession, unethical media industry practices like internships and “permalance” jobs are fueling this trend. J-schools need to fight the media sweatshop mentality. Otherwise, they may have no future.

via Hunter walker: 10 Ways To Earn More Than You Can Working At The Columbia Journalism Review.

                          

This is a great story about how my colleagues on the faculty at American University’s School of Communication have kept teaching despite back-to-back blizzards that shut down most of the capital city. We all got it done using various communication technologies online and really, what else would you expect — we do teach people how to communicate after all. Check it out:

SOC Snow Days | American University School of Communication.

                          

My operating mantra in this is that our masters grads should be able to be self publishers, change leaders in newsrooms or hit the ground running where ever they end up.

There is a wiki linked from Jeff’s post where syllabi and materials are being shared.

Teaching entrepreneurial journalism « BuzzMachine.

Again, it continues to disappoint me that journalists are having these conversations and ad directors and publishers are not more publicly engaged.