Good afternoon. I’m going to focus on two areas of interest that relate to this idea of responsible journalism and new paradigms needed for the news. First I want to talk about Columbia University’s actions that have sparked many reactions, and then I’m going to talk a little bit about the lofty idealistic goals that might come from what has emerged as a result of Columbia’s initiative. I will also review the issue of there being little to no diversity among the people who shape our views of the world, both in the academic setting as well as in the news industry.

About 18 months ago I wrote an article for Quill magazine in reference to the decision by President Lee Bollinger of Columbia University to focus on that university’s broad understanding of what a modern journalism/mass communication education core curriculum should look like. I believed that his actions would encourage all of us in higher education in journalism/mass communications to rethink what we do and how we do it. Columbia is one of the leading professional journalism schools, and the decisions that it makes shape and fortify what’s done at other schools. In fact, Bollinger has caused many to focus already on journalism/mass communication education. The Carnegie Corporation and the Knight Foundation have joined forces to launch an initiative to revitalize and reform journalism education in our country. Five universities are part of this initiative: Columbia, Harvard, Northwestern, University of California at Berkeley and the University of Southern California.

The thing is, there have been other periods in our history when journalism/mass communication educators have come together with journalism industry professionals to focus on the quality and direction of journalism education programs. I’m reminded particularly of the Oregon Report in 1984, officially named “Planning for Curricular Change in Journalism Education,” a project spearheaded by the president of AEJMC at the time, Everette Dennis, who is now a distinguished professor at Fordham University. This team worked for three or four years, focusing on what was called “ferment in the field.” There was a great amount of agitation and concern about what journalism is doing, about, for example, what journalism education is doing to help journalism become better and stronger.

They wanted to apply critical analysis to the work that we do. This report was designed to try to push the field a little farther toward excellence—excellence in journalism education and excellence in journalism as a result. A decade later, in 1995, there was a dean’s roundtable of journalism/mass communication programs, led by Trevor Brown, Richard Cole and Reese Cleghorn, held at the University of Maryland. Again we came together to try to push the field as we sorted out what makes a great journalism school. Not long after that, another group met at the University of Texas under the leadership of Ellen Wartella, and again the issue was, how do we strengthen what we do? They focused on what journalism students should know and when they should learn it—so we could hold them and ourselves accountable

And so we come to two years ago, when Columbia University publicly joined Stanford, New York University and others—at Howard University we were doing the same things—wrestling with this issue of who are we and how we are functioning.

Many of these programs asked themselves not whether journalism programs should teach professional skills or wax theoretical, but how could each way of learning best be taught to our students, because one of the issues that Columbia raised was, should we be theoretical or should we in fact focus on being professional? Some argue that if the emphasis is largely on skills courses, then students leave us without a clear understanding of the role they need to play as thoughtful journalists who understand the need to confront issues and who can report and write with some understanding of social, historical, theoretical and political context.

Of course, the other side of it is, if the emphasis is mainly on thoughtful research and analysis without any practice of the craft, then other important elements are lost. So clearly, we concluded, students need a balance of both skills and understanding if they are to truly practice their craft as society needs them to do.

President Bollinger’s call for a more reflective, more comprehensive education that is more intellectually based of course steers students toward the wider university, and that’s a good move. It’s redundant to say that there’s a wealth of information within the setting of a university. Of course there is information, knowledge, expertise, experiences all around students. And obviously we should be pushing them to firmly pursue looking at what is around them. In later years, if we are pushed in this direction, which I suspect will happen, I think students will be grateful that leaders in higher education moved this way with thought and care.

There are some who are talking about how that direction should be carved. Mitchell Stephens, a faculty member at New York University, issued a “J-School Manifesto” in the Columbia Journalism Review not long ago. He says that as we change our paradigm and strive for excellence, some of the discipline’s most cherished practices will have to change because more is needed than just teaching the basics. We need to advance journalism, he says. And he gives some examples of how that might occur. One that I thought was particularly intriguing was about Pamela Newkirk, a faculty member at NYU who mixes theory and practice by having her students study and critique articles and issues in broadcast journalism, and then talk about how they could, in fact, improve upon them. Places, such as Harlem, New York, that are often left out of news articles, were used as the context for her critiques. Students were required to critically address issues in a way that would be more engaging, inspiring and meaningful to readers.

William Woo, a professor at Stanford University, has talked in Nieman Reports about the great task for us as journalism educators and as journalists to try to equip students with a firm sense of the public trust—how the public trust idea developed, what it means to America, and how it manifests itself or is betrayed by the work that individual journalists and news organizations do. Woo and others argue that educators must be in the vanguard, really advocating, relentlessly nurturing and protecting such concepts so that when students leave, they leave armed with this knowledge. He says we have to do this for democracy to survive. That’s a weighty statement, but obviously it’s one that I believe in and I think most of us in this room believe in.

Journalism is not just a craft or a profession. It’s the linchpin of the foundation of democracy—an informed citizenry making informed judgments about how they are going to live together. Since our country’s beginnings, journalists have been entrusted by the public to enlighten them with the information they need to have quality debates for making wise decisions. I believe that even in the new atmosphere, with the new technologies, journalists are going to have to be in there helping to lead the way for people to sort through all the information that is coming at them. Journalists will need to help readers and viewers try to figure out where they stand and how they might want to think about some of the issues that are being raised.

There’s a growing concern among many that, as media owners gain more and more control of news organizations, there is an increasing drumbeat for maximizing profits for shareholders and the like. But Woo and others talk about the fact that we really have to argue for and stand up for making certain that America’s media owners and shareholders recognize the value of the journalists’ role of serving this “public trust.”

My second point focuses on the issue of diversity. Diversity is one of the most emotional issues that most people say they are for, often because it’s the politically correct thing to do. Year after year, businesses, educational institutions, media outlets and others pledge to ensure that their organizations will reflect the diversity of America. And year after year they fail. Three reports on diversity efforts issued recently reconfirm the fact that America still doesn’t quite get it in relationship to diversity. The American Society of Newspaper Editors’ annual census released in April a report about a slight increase in the number of minorities at daily newspapers, but daily percentages still fall short of the goal and this has happened year after year.

The “Fall Colors 2003–2004 Prime Time Diversity Report,” produced by the organization called Children Now, found that “the message prime-time television sends to children about the world in which they live is that some racial groups are privileged while others are under-represented or even invisible.” There were no Native American characters in any episode in the study sample. Nearly two-thirds of all characters were male, 46 percent of Middle Eastern characters were criminals, Latinos were three times less likely than whites to hold professional occupations, and so forth.

A third report—on the history and impact of Standard 12, which is the standard used by the accrediting council for assessing how well we’re doing in our standards for journalism and mass communication programs in our country—called “A National Study of Diversity in Journalism and Mass Communication Education” also was very discouraging.

According to its findings, the percentages of non-white students in journalism and mass communication programs showed little to no change. A growing number of accredited schools offer courses devoted to diversity, but they are mostly electives and infrequently offered. Perhaps most discouraging—and puzzling—of all is that “there is still some ambivalence and confusion about the meaning of the term diversity. Look around you. Some of the people you see are white, but chances are even more are black, brown or yellow. Some are experiencing the American dream; others are not. Some are disabled. Some are gay; some are straight. Some have children; others do not. This is the changing face of society. All perspectives need to be understood in our news reports.

Standard 12 focuses on a school’s commitment to increased diversity in student populations and faculties and to creating learning environments that expose students to a broad spectrum of voices and views. This is imperative if these students are to tell balanced and compelling stories during the course of their careers as journalists, after they enter the workforce.

Despite the valiant efforts of some dedicated educators and news organizations, diversity and inclusivity have not been successfully obtained on most campuses or in most newsrooms where students—as alumni—go to work. This issue has plagued newsroom managers and educators alike.

The 1947 Hutchins Report called for a balanced representation of the day’s events in a context that gives them meaning—not through a prism of one set of eyes. Diversity is needed in media, just as it already permeates society.

The reasons for a lack of success in achieving diversity in newsrooms are well known:

1. According to numerous studies, when they graduate many aspiring journalists of color do not feel as welcomed into the field as their counterparts do;
2. There is a steady attrition of journalists of color; as new recruits come into newsrooms, the same number of seasoned journalists of color leave the field. Thus, there is insignificant growth in the numbers at any level

Yet, there is a steady drumbeat for more diversity. Some might ask how we can get to the root of the problem? Where are the largest numbers of students of color to be found in colleges today? Can we not support those programs and increase the pipeline of entry-level journalists of color? The answer is that students of color who are focused on journalism/mass communication as majors are found at the seven fully accredited historically black colleges and universities (Howard, Hampton, Florida A&M, Norfolk State, Grambling, Southern, Jackson State), as well as the mainstream schools of University of Texas, Temple, Penn State and the University of San Francisco, among others. Support for these programs varies.

Caesar Andrews, of Gannett News Service and a member of the Accrediting Council of Education in Journalism and Mass Communications, has argued that the climates in classrooms and newsrooms need to be welcoming environments for young people of color. Otherwise, they will feel like outsiders to the newsroom culture and interlopers in conversations among colleagues. When the climate feels unwelcoming, often journalists of color will believe their colleagues in the newsroom are not interested in hearing their views and ideas.

When asked, minority journalists in newsrooms express their dissatisfaction with (1) the non-challenging assignments they are given; (2) feeling marginalized by peers; and (3) not seeing opportunities on the horizon for promotion and advancement to management levels for themselves and others like them.

Some educators suggest that newsrooms use strategies such as the following to strengthen their diversity programs:

1. Search for experienced journalists of color at the smaller news organizations, prepare to pay them their worth; and
2. Realize that establishing a safe environment for journalists from diverse backgrounds to present varying points of view may assist news organizations in retaining good journalists of color in larger numbers and give a more “balanced representation of the day’s events in a context that gives them meaning.”

To bring us full circle, if we are going to have responsible journalists in the future, we had better play close attention to what they are being taught in J-schools. Columbia University’s initiative has sparked a conversation that will continue for many years. Tomorrow the country will get a clearer sense of what that conversation and direction may be for higher education.

And if we are to have responsible journalism in the future, we need to have diverse groups of journalists shaping the stories we hear. The single voice of just one group (white males) through whose eyes all messages are shaped is not a balanced representation of the day’s events in a context that gives them meaning.