Reflections on the media-academic divide
K.E. EAPEN
|
The changing face of the media is on the lookout for scholarly input
|
THE INSPIRATION for this article is the contents of the address of President Abdul Kalam at the Press Council (The Hindu, November 16) and Hasan Suroor's "Bridging the media-academic divide" (November 30). As one who has laboured in the media-academic vineyard for over half a century, I find solace in these pieces.
When Nagpur University located its Department of Journalism at Hislop College in 1952, it raised many eyebrows of newspersons and university teachers. "Journalists are born, not made," was the popular refrain then. It was The Hindu's N. Raghunatha Iyer who inaugurated the programme. Later, S.A. Govindarajan of The Hindu was to be Osmania University's Journalism Professor-Head, a genuine newsperson-academic bridge. This media-academia synergy of the paper has continued to the present leadership, Columbia University alumni, and with the founding of the Asian College of Journalism
In one of my books, Communication: A Discipline in Distress, many criticisms against training were countered. Criticism had come from some of the most well known English language peddlers of the 1960s: two editors of the Illustrated Weekly of India, an Assistant Editor of The Statesman (an Oxonian who claimed J-training was taboo in the U.K.), and the like. These gentlemen expressed their disdain and pique — "Journalism training is all hogwash"; "one can understand training for venereology, not for journalism"; "it is the illusion of immature youngsters trying to learn journalism in classrooms," etc.
The formative years of Hislop efforts were not at all that criticised. A host of veterans such as Frank Moraes, Pothan Joseph and Chalapathi Rau, or American J-graduates such as the late Sahani and Kuldip Nayar had extended their broad shoulders in support of the university's attempts.
To just pick up one point which President Kalam highlighted: "It is essential to have research wings in academic institutions developing media personnel in reporting news, event analysis and highlights... for acquiring postgraduate qualifications which will improve the quality of content of the print media."
Many journalists continue to report that "after a random survey... " By "random," they usually mean their family members, drivers, office staff and the like. "Random" is more than that and research methodology courses at the introductory level can at least enlighten potential newsmen of the boundaries of such terms. Be it Osmania, Nagpur, Bangalore or Kerala Universities, where I happened to teach, an inkling of research notions was built into courses.
To cite risks of doing so, an experience from Trivandrum is enough. Many Master's degree students there, probably goaded by media people, refused to take the M.J. examinations paper on research. Only the strong position taken by the university registrar could compel those who cared for their degrees to yield.
As reported by Hasan Suroor, Professor Timothy Gordon Ash of Oxford University, a regular columnist as well, was teased by his academic colleagues for "one foot in both graves." Media courses in British universities, says Suroor, are mockingly referred to as "Mickey Mouse" courses — along with hair dressing, cooking and fashion design. The changing face of the media is on the lookout for scholarly input. For example, TV producers often include academics in studio discussions for audience credibility.
There is some room for criticism of Indian J-departments. Many teachers have had no practical experience with any medium. Some of them lean on their notes from student days for teaching. Many fail to relate their lectures to the technological revolution in communication. "New" journalism is more about backgrounding based on research and analysis. Journalists are no more mere news gatherers, just holding a mirror to events.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
