It was hard times for Columbia Journalism School as the storied institution neared its 2012 centennial—and not for the first time in its tumultuous history.
Thank you, this is a really interesting insight into the marketing machine behind “finishing school” (I like that comparison) journalism courses in the US.
Exile, if grantmanship is the future of journalism, then shouldn't the Pulitzer Committee dispense with prizes for investigative reporting, editorials, and news photos, and substitute a prize for the year's best grant application?
That's a great idea, John, but would require some more self-awareness on their part! In a very real sense, many of the Pulitzer Prizes are already essentially awarded for journalists' facility navigating the sensibilities and prejudices of the philanthropy set--the prize is often a recipient's golden ticket into editorial or a sinecure at a j-school somewhere, and a strong indicator that one is a reliable team player in advancing the latest fashionable narrative. Not that there still aren't some wonderful conscientious journalists winning richly-deserved Pulitzers, but that they're not always the majority!
I think I found one of the videos the Exile refers to, on You Tube. Its title is "100 Years of Storytelling" and it dates from around the time of the school's centennial. The credits do not mention Jesse Dylan but list Nadine Natour as one of the producers. So, maybe this is the student-made production. Is the professional production available anywhere on the internet?
Found it, watched it. Exile, I doubt that anyone who appears in either of the two videos has the slightest idea why most Americans do not trust the news media.
I'll optimistically say maybe several of them! The J-School does end up having a lot of smart people passing through, they've got some good folks who are probably as painfully aware as anyone how far journalistic standards have slid. But probably not a very fashionable POV at the staff holiday party!
One of the fundamental social facts of journalism, especially among people with graduate degrees, is tremendous class and status anxiety. A lot of journalists like to think of themselves as elite professionals in the same company as lawyers and doctors and executives and so forth, but make so much less money and get so much less respect from the public.
So even people with nagging doubts about the state of things, who may think the 1619 project is a little dubious or Donald McNeil shouldn't have been fired from the Times etc., have every incentive to keep their mouths shut and do their best to minimize their doubts and try to rationalize the situation. To stray too far from polite conventional wisdom would be to mark oneself as low-class and low status, perhaps even to oneself.
To the extent that they might acknowledge things have gone downhill, well it's because of that horrible Trump and the crazies he unleashed and then the pandemic and murder of George Floyd -- of course things went a little haywire, and young people got a little too passionate. But they'll learn, and the important thing is that the adults are back in charge, we're past peak woke, and the ship is righting itself -- especially if journalists like us get more grants and public funding...
And then there are those who hate what's happened, have a gallows sense of humor about it and any prospects for improvement, and go on with their heads down trying to do their jobs as well as they can while remaining socially and professionally viable. I suspect there may be more of them than one might think.
Nov 12, 2023·edited Nov 12, 2023Liked by The Ivy Exile
Bull's eye! It can be risky to your career to mention that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes. Anecdote: Krushchev once met with a group of Soviet news reporters and agreed to take anonymous written questions. One question was, "You denounced Stalin's crimes, but what did you do about them while he was committing them?"
Krushchev flew into a rage. "Who dares to ask such a question? Let him stand up and show himself!" None of them did. Krushchev remarked, "Well, now you know what I was doing."
Thank you, this is a really interesting insight into the marketing machine behind “finishing school” (I like that comparison) journalism courses in the US.
Exile, if grantmanship is the future of journalism, then shouldn't the Pulitzer Committee dispense with prizes for investigative reporting, editorials, and news photos, and substitute a prize for the year's best grant application?
That's a great idea, John, but would require some more self-awareness on their part! In a very real sense, many of the Pulitzer Prizes are already essentially awarded for journalists' facility navigating the sensibilities and prejudices of the philanthropy set--the prize is often a recipient's golden ticket into editorial or a sinecure at a j-school somewhere, and a strong indicator that one is a reliable team player in advancing the latest fashionable narrative. Not that there still aren't some wonderful conscientious journalists winning richly-deserved Pulitzers, but that they're not always the majority!
I think I found one of the videos the Exile refers to, on You Tube. Its title is "100 Years of Storytelling" and it dates from around the time of the school's centennial. The credits do not mention Jesse Dylan but list Nadine Natour as one of the producers. So, maybe this is the student-made production. Is the professional production available anywhere on the internet?
Impressive detective work! The professional production is also lurking online to be discovered!
Found it, watched it. Exile, I doubt that anyone who appears in either of the two videos has the slightest idea why most Americans do not trust the news media.
I'll optimistically say maybe several of them! The J-School does end up having a lot of smart people passing through, they've got some good folks who are probably as painfully aware as anyone how far journalistic standards have slid. But probably not a very fashionable POV at the staff holiday party!
If they are aware of the problem, how do they plan to solve it? Or does each of them hope to be the last journalist to lose his job?
One of the fundamental social facts of journalism, especially among people with graduate degrees, is tremendous class and status anxiety. A lot of journalists like to think of themselves as elite professionals in the same company as lawyers and doctors and executives and so forth, but make so much less money and get so much less respect from the public.
So even people with nagging doubts about the state of things, who may think the 1619 project is a little dubious or Donald McNeil shouldn't have been fired from the Times etc., have every incentive to keep their mouths shut and do their best to minimize their doubts and try to rationalize the situation. To stray too far from polite conventional wisdom would be to mark oneself as low-class and low status, perhaps even to oneself.
To the extent that they might acknowledge things have gone downhill, well it's because of that horrible Trump and the crazies he unleashed and then the pandemic and murder of George Floyd -- of course things went a little haywire, and young people got a little too passionate. But they'll learn, and the important thing is that the adults are back in charge, we're past peak woke, and the ship is righting itself -- especially if journalists like us get more grants and public funding...
And then there are those who hate what's happened, have a gallows sense of humor about it and any prospects for improvement, and go on with their heads down trying to do their jobs as well as they can while remaining socially and professionally viable. I suspect there may be more of them than one might think.
Bull's eye! It can be risky to your career to mention that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes. Anecdote: Krushchev once met with a group of Soviet news reporters and agreed to take anonymous written questions. One question was, "You denounced Stalin's crimes, but what did you do about them while he was committing them?"
Krushchev flew into a rage. "Who dares to ask such a question? Let him stand up and show himself!" None of them did. Krushchev remarked, "Well, now you know what I was doing."