Where to go now

Universities are experiencing a moderate dip in enrollment (which, understandably, causes great concern). The responses can vary, but often involve generating credit hours through the application and use of new media technology. And while Distance Education is a great way for students living in areas too far from universities to actually attend, it is not the last step we should take.

Part of the problem, at least in my small world of journalism, is that we have a lot of doom, without much light. Yes, newspaper subscriptions are down. Yes, readership is down. Yes, it looks bad for the long term. But only if we cling to the traditional method of delivery.

What I find must odd about the wrestling match over teaching new mass comm media is the reluctance to adopt among faculty (and, that's just here—it's everywhere). It's almost as if we were teaching how to run as linotype machine because, while they were obliterated by "cold type" 30, 35 years ago, we think this is still the best way to deliver the news. Well, newspapers back in the 1970s had no trouble at all with eliminating hot lead, and later, eliminating "cold type," replacing each new method with the latest and greatest technology.

In some cases, the technology pushed the limits, such as McClatchy's Raleigh News & Observer conversion to seamless reporter/editor/copyeditor/designer/film/plates operation in the 1990s. (By the way, McClatchy now refers to itself as an "Internet publisher". Interesting.

And, while newspapers, like the N&O have set up web sites, and slimmed down the newsroom operation (I was a weekend editor at the N&O for a year or so back in 1995 or 6, can't remember precisely), the actual way information is gathered and presented is pretty much the same. Report, write, edit, re-edit, print, deliver. All the while, the precious few readers really interested in the news are wandering off to other sources (mostly online). In some cases, the dedication to "online" is really just some poor guy walking through the newsroom at or near deadline asking what stories might be good for the site (as was done at the N&O).

It's not a habit learned out of blue sky. Placing the online behind the print is a learned behavior students at universities have drilled into them early on. For example, here at K-State, our student newspaper, the Collegian, receives the lion's share of the attention from the writers and editors, with posting to the web site an after-thought (though some minor effort is made to post web only stories). It's plain that a real focus on the online is just not there. Thousands of papers are printing. Tens of thousands of dollars poured into newsprint.

I appreciate the habit of people to read a newspaper, especially if it's free. But, if it's free, wouldn't make more sense to pour that hard-earned student government fiscal support into more news, more reporting, more video, more of what the students need? Like explaining how the university works (a mystery to most students ... and faculty)?

What if most of the money was put into the online Collegian? Readers would shift to the online (yes, most students have laptops), and, yes, the online version would actually have to be user friendly, instead of being a slow-loading database site it is now.

And, most importantly for our students, the skills of video, breaking news, constant updating, and a real 24/7 feel to the Collegian would take over. Evening reporting from Aggeville. Daily postings from Topeka. Video galore!

Well, yes, that would be something. It was force us to teach differently. Hmm. Now there's a thought for another day.

Are Journalism Schools Revelant?

In the midst of a changing delivery system, it's easy to wonder: what are we teaching? Yesterday's tech skills (which, by the way, could be today's tomorrow)?

Some thoughts:
1. Journalism/Adv/PR have never been held in high esteem and rarely acted in such a way to deserve high esteem (eg: photo manipulation in the early 20th century -- and later).

2. Some profs have raised the excellent point of the errors of teaching technology rather than concepts. Well, rather than bucking the trend by bemoaning the irrelevancy of an expensive but useless "perfect radio lab", why not focus on the concepts and work within the "low-tech" of $200 digital cameras and phones? Why not just teach using the technology that seems relevant to the students as a way of getting them to the concepts. Hard to say we are talking relevant concepts if we are using irrelevant tools; but we don't need to worry about "perfect" tools if worrying about perfect makes us yesterdays news.

3. Why not actually change the curriculum? Like maybe

Advertising:

a. Survey course

b. Strategy: targeting the single consumer using new media tools like ____________ (now YouTube, next year?)

c. The X-Factor: concepting persuasiuve messages that attract pull, rather than rely on push.

d. Creative Concepts: Static/Video/Interactive imaging.

e. Online Media Planning: Tracking the users, creating immediate and rapid media placement response systems.

f. Interships

g. The Campaign System

I would think we could also offer these (other than the strategy and cmapiagn) in any particular order.

It seems at times that we are teaching silent film, really good silent film, and can't quite grasp why our students are really more interested in a low-grade "takie" over our real good silent. But whatever we do, we need to do it now.