Extrapolating my thoughts.

Yesterday, @ColbyWG posted this graphic he created to J School Buzz. And while I absolutely love it, I wanted to extrapolate (hey my first math term on this blog) a few additional points of my own about how us “Convergers” feel on the J School Sine Curve.

@ColbyWG's version via J School Buzz

My Version

Multimedia meltdown.

Multimedia and online are the future of journalism.

Upon entering college three years ago I was drilled with this idea every single time I stepped into a journalism or communication class.

The lecture would go a little something like this…

“The principles of American journalism… blah, blah, blah… online journalism. Joseph Pulitzer once said… blah, blah, blah… multimedia.”

My teachers preached this, guest lecturers raved about this, and (once I had enough cred to get one) my internship bosses imparted this wisdom as well. And by choosing to follow the Convergence sequence in the University of Missouri School of Journalism, I too glorify (present tense) this thought – especially at 8 am when I have to roll out of bed, run to convergence class across campus, and remind myself why I am awake.

Newsflash: here is a new piece of wisdom, us journalism school kids are sick of hearing that multimedia and online are the future of journalism. Not because it’s wrong, but because we know this and so does everyone else.

A recent Huffington Post article, whether meaning to or not, perfectly proves my point. The article called, College Journalists Are Good at Consuming Multimedia but Bad at Making It. Why?, is about the author, Michael Koretzky, and his experience judging a multimedia competition. The college newspaper websites he set out to evaluate fell way below his expectations. He theorized why…

Print is special to college journalists precisely because it’s old tech.

The easiest way to insult a college journalist is to tell them they have an online exclusive.

On our campus, newsprint is still the most mobile and immediate form of media.

Alas, it takes a lot of time to maintain even a homely newspaper website.

All of his reasons are totally correct. But I think there is another underlying, bigger theme he is missing. As journalism students, we are always around multimedia and online journalism – a majority of my classes even have the words ‘multimedia’ and ‘online’ in their official titles. We know how to make good multimedia and we are taught how to make good multimedia everyday… it is expected of us and of our professors. When it comes to actually doing it, sometimes we are burnt out and we just don’t care. I have been blogging and making web pages since high school (19% of people 12-17 have their own blogs). There is nothing too overly thrilling or special about this multimedia online production for me.  When I enter the workforce in a year (fingers crossed) I will be expected to know how to create meaningful online content – and I will. Will anything else be expected of me… I don’t know.

Right now for me, simplistic web design and online publications are just as welcome as a ‘flashy’ page with flash.

Maybe this reporter should take a step back from his expectations… is it really a bad thing when my internet age generation is worried more about content over presentation? Right now, while we are in school, let us worry about what we put out there – when we wear suits and ties in a few years, then you can worry about how we put it out there and if that ‘how’ is making it sell.

New J-School Curriculum.

“New curriculum at the University of Missouri School of Journalism offers 23 degree options instead of the previous six.” (See the school’s explanation this statement is taken from HERE)

Umm hello? I’m confused.

Six to 23 is an extreme jump and I have some extremely conflicting views about today’s announcement. For the past few months I have been going through the “internship process.” I’ve explained countless times WHAT convergence journalism is and WHY it is unique/good/defines the Missouri Method. Well now I fell like I have been spouting some major BS…

I like to say convergence and the Missouri j-school/method, in general, are all about molding students into employable “one-man bands.” I am able to make this argument because since freshman year, I have been brain washed to think that this one-man band journalism ability is a good thing – MU grads are are great because we can be a true asset to all newsrooms; we are versatile, experienced, flexible and ahead of the curve – not only can I man the camera but I can also do the stand up too and then convert my work to online content (want to pay me for all three jobs?). Now with 25 extremely focused areas, can we really say we are being trained to be this type of journalist? And, more importantly, have we been brain washed to think highly of the one-man band journalist simply so we can be convinced way the J-School was organized was good?

Don’t think I’m jumping all over Brian Brooks like every other student loves to do (let’s face it, all of his e-mails, justifiable or not, come under fire). I’m not bashing the new curriculum… I just have some questions about the thought process behind it – questions not answered by the very PR explanation on the school’s website. I do see the good – it provides an entirely new strategy for students to mold exactly what type of journalist they want to become. The article says:

“The expanded number of options will allow students to take better advantage of the courses, hands-on opportunities in real-media labs and other resources available in their particular interest areas as well as create interdisciplinary and cross-platform learning opportunities tailored to their career goals.”

This is great – every student wants that flexibility to go between emphasis’s and have curriculum options. It also means the convergence classes about multimedia will be required for a lot more students (now maybe strat. comm. kids will have real reasons for being in the Future’s Lab). I’m on-board with all of this. I’m just questioning if making students target their education into one very specified direction will take something away for the overall abilities. Will focusing on Cultural Journalism (the vague name of a new emphasis) prevent me from also knowing how to be a journalist for other types of things and be able to stumble into other areas I might be unknowingly strong in?

This is the point in my post where I am supposed to conclude my thoughts and tie them all together – hate to break it to you, but I can’t. I don’t know how I feel about the new changes, I see the pros and I see the cons and I also see the faults in my beliefs about my own education and what I want from an education. I could argue my self in circles about the changes announced today and I also lack enough knowledge about the details of the change to produce arguments valid enough to stand alone. So until I know A LOT more or the first batch of kids goes through the Missouri School of Journalism under these new curriculum outlines (who knows which will actually come first), I won’t be able to give you a nice succinct train of thought – until then I look forward to reading the complaints/praises from all you current j-schoolers ready to whine about change.

Risky Business in a Button-Down.

My favorite item in my closet is a white button-down shirt from Gap. I call it my boyfriend shirt because, if I had a boyfriend, it would look like a dress shirt I grabbed right out of his closet. So today, in effort to look presentable while working as the convergence editor at The Missourian, I wore my white shirt. Sitting here, avoiding my work I finally realized why I love this shirt so much. It is comfortable, versatile and a timeless classic – but it also reminds me of one of my favorite movie scenes. So here it is – enjoy!

I promise, I’m not running around the newsroom impersonating Tom Cruise – but if it was socially acceptable to do so in a room full of strangers, I totally would.