• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Steve Herman moves from the VOA to University of Mississippi



The University of Mississippi has announced veteran journalist Steve Herman as the inaugural executive director of the Jordan Center for Journalism Advocacy and Innovation.
Herman, who is retiring from Voice of America, will start at the center housed in the School of Journalism and New Media on July 7. He will lead the center's mission of engaging students, journalists and the public in addressing media literacy and journalistic integrity.


Steve Herman will join the University of Mississippi in July.
 
Does anyone have an issue for a college division being called "Center for Journalism Advocacy and Innovation"?

I find the juxtaposition of "journalism" and "advocacy" to be of concern. Journalism is... or used to be... neutral and reflective of reality. "Advocacy" indicates a polarized attitude.

Or do they just mean "support for journalism"? As in "rah, rha writing!" with cheerleaders and the like?
 
Right now, it doesn't appear there's a lot of people advocating for journalism as an idea. Musk's take not too long ago was "YOU are the media now!"

Well, free speech is great. Blog away all you like, tweet and Facebook about whatever, but that's not journalism. It seems like these days it's pretty popular to beat up on the idea of journalism writ large, or the idea of fact based reporting. Everyone seems to just want to make it up or hear what they want. So journalism can use some advocacy for its very existence.
 
Well, free speech is great. Blog away all you like, tweet and Facebook about whatever, but that's not journalism. It seems like these days it's pretty popular to beat up on the idea of journalism writ large, or the idea of fact based reporting. Everyone seems to just want to make it up or hear what they want. So journalism can use some advocacy for its very existence.
Well, we have a new medium beyond town criers, newspapers, radio and then television. But is the internet any different than a bunch of those town criers on a pedestal shouting out the latest news?

One can question whether journalism includes "the editorial page" or that the news and opinion should be clearly segregated. The recently departed lead anchor of Univision, Jorge Ramos, believed that the person delivering the news had a responsibility for interpreting it; the new owners did not agree. What are college level journalism professors telling students as to the eternal question of how to best focus a news story?
 





Steve Herman will join the University of Mississippi in July.
Great to hear!
 
If I was Steve Herman, I would be careful. The university is funded by the state, and they could target him the same way the president did. Universities, particularly state universities, are also under attack by various ideologists. Freedom of the press isn't always seen as a positive thing. As of now, the Jordan center is funded by a private grant. It will be important to ensure that funding is maintained to ensure independence:

 
One can question whether journalism includes "the editorial page" or that the news and opinion should be clearly segregated. The recently departed lead anchor of Univision, Jorge Ramos, believed that the person delivering the news had a responsibility for interpreting it; the new owners did not agree. What are college level journalism professors telling students as to the eternal question of how to best focus a news story?

Back in the early 1980s when I was at LMU, the focus was on interpretation and explanation. The communications professors I had argued that while truth existed, every journalist interpreted the available facts based on either their own perspectives or on the corporate line at whichever company they worked.

For many years, I disagreed with these professors, and, in some ways I still do. I can remember hearing Thom Hartmann or Amy Goodman saying on air that the news stories being told needed to have some context, and I thought they were talking gibberish.

Then came the U.S. elections of 2016 and 2024 and the aftermath of 2020, and I began to see what these people were pointing out. Listing new executive orders and new policies without giving the context of those policies, including the past histories of if these policies were ever tried before and what happened when they were tried, gave more creedence to the idea that the policies hadn't been tried before which wasn't true.

Now, I'm not for journalists necessarily giving their own opinions of a news story; rather I support the idea of explaining the policy and what the history tells about its success in the past (if it was tried earlier) and how likely, according to experts in the field, given policies will be in the future. Public radio (which is now on the chopping block) tends to do this very well; for commercial stations, it's a hit-and-miss depending on the views of the station owners.

The problem, beyond journalists substituting their own opinions for actual research, is that most people are willing to listen to 30- and 60-second bites on individual stories and then make up their minds right away. That can, and has, led to careless decision-making in the past.
 
Does anyone have an issue for a college division being called "Center for Journalism Advocacy and Innovation"?

I find the juxtaposition of "journalism" and "advocacy" to be of concern. Journalism is... or used to be... neutral and reflective of reality. "Advocacy" indicates a polarized attitude.

Or do they just mean "support for journalism"? As in "rah, rha writing!" with cheerleaders and the like?
As someone who minored in Journalism at college, I think that the two concepts are not that far apart, from the perspective of the student. Student newspapers do not just have hard news sections, they also have opinion pages. Any journalism student is going to have to face the fact that they may end up being a column writer -- or the modern day equivalent (podcaster, opinionated talking head at a TV news network, etc.). Or, they need to learn to comprehend that there is a difference between hard news, and opinion. And if they're getting into sports journalism, often there is a mix between the two.

Most journalism programs teach more than just hard news writing and reporting. The programs cover everything from newspapering (although today it's online), podcasting, radio/TV (what's left of those fields), the whole gamut.

So I think the advocacy part is probably pertinent. I mean, look at how popular Fox, CNN, MSNBC are as news networks. A lot of their programming is advocacy. There are online 'news network' podcasts by organizations as diverse as Newsmax and DemocracyNow, and then you have the popular journalist/podcasters like David Pakman and the Daily Wire guys -- it's all related to journalism. Someone has to write their copy.
 
I mean, look at how popular Fox, CNN, MSNBC are as news networks. A lot of their programming is advocacy.

Their "programming" offers a mix of news & talk. The talk shows aren't news. They're talk shows based on the news. There's a difference.

Perhaps what's needed is a disclaimer so everyone knows which is which.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom