Posts by Stephen Judd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
argue its merits, rather than merely mounting a tribal defence
I don't think I'm in the tribe of academics, or post-modernists, or Marxists. On the other hand, there's the tribe of journalists...
-
I am struck by how defensive some of you are in response to criticism of the paper, and by the readiness to offer excuses for its lamentable style.
Right back at ya. Only 100% reversed :-)
-
Actually, the genius of Phelan's article is that it produces reactions from journalists that prove the point he tries to make, which is that they hate theory that goes beyond craft.
-
It sometimes seems to me that this kind of writing, which purports to employ a wide and sophisticated vocabulary, actually tends to revolve around a very restricted set of jargon-words that serve more as a signal to others in the club than to convey real meaning.
The audience matters. In an academic context, like a court room, no unsupported claim or vague usage goes unchallenged. Those words do serve as a signal, but they have an actual function too. When I write for programmers and I use words like "orthogonal" and "idempotent" these are signals that I am a big nerd, and those words could be replaced by simpler phrases, but those words also encapsulate precise and narrow meanings which I want to employ.
I have no doubt that Phelan could produce a punchy two-page version for a different audience. You might as well ask why your mortage agreement doesn't say "give us the money every month or we'll sell your house" - after all, that's all it means, yes?
the very last thing we would want young people in communications jobs to do is emulate such a style.
No doubt Paul Litterick will correct me, but I bet that art schools have valuable staff members who nonetheless cannot produce compelling works of art themselves.
-
Actually, if I were going to make an offensive distillation of the piece, it would go like this:
1. Du Fresne is a lap dog of the establishment.
2. Trotter is a mutt, but he still expects to be fed.
3. Journalism schools are dog breeders.
4. Media7 are show judges - accurate and even harsh critics of conformation, agility and obedience, but not really questioning the fundamentals of the dog fancy.
5. Phelan is a snooty cat lover and probably donates to SAFE.That of course strips it of all nuance, but I think it explains why Du Fresne is very offended and Russell somewhat touchy. If you want the nuance though, then you have to put back all the exquisitely defined words and laborious qualifications that clutter it up so much.
-
In fact, we can simplify his conclusion nicely into something that I at least can agree with. Here's my 10% precis of his conclusion:
The academic study of journalism doesn't have much point if its insights don't influence journalists. Current journalist training, which focuses on practice, shies away from looking at the effects which journalistic practice has on society. Academic study should do more than just look at guidelines for practice, but also see how that practice affects democracy and supports a particular political order.
There. I got rid of the pomo name-checking, the academic apparatus, and the scary words, and what's left is quite reasonable. -
Short version of the author's argument: unless you think like us and worship our ideological gods, it doesn't count as thinking. The experience of the "practitioner" is to be especially distrusted. Talk about misrecognising one's particular discourse as a universal one, eh?
What in particular makes you say that? Where is the suggestion that practitioners' experience be distrusted?
What he says about training is that it omits theory (in his specialist definition of looking at how journalism practice supports established power) in favour of practical training. That might be right or wrong, I don't know.
I don't read him as saying that Media7's commentary is untrustworthy, but as saying that like fish who don't see the water they swim in, working journalists don't see how they are part of the very edifice they report on. The fish can still give a great account of being a fish.
(This too may be an unfair criticism he makes, but it's of a different kind to "don't trust them, it's not thinking").
Of course I may be more sympathetic because I have a reflexive belief that if Karl DuFresne is against it, I'm probably for it. But I think your summary really does misrepresent Phelan.
-
I don't want to get all Paul Henry, but surely there's a place for, er, tittering ?
-
Andrew: if one were reimplementing, I think talking to them about what they've learned would be the very first thing to do.
-
slarty: email me and let's talk. It doesn't look technically challenging (famous last words).