Best of the President’s Roundtable

Technology, communication, and journalism industry leaders convened in Jesse Auditorium Friday afternoon to discuss the futures of technology and journalism. The session, officially titled “Communication for a Digital Globe,” was taped by KETC/Channel 9 of St. Louis for future broadcast. University of Missouri System President Gary Forsee hosted the roundtable, and Russ Mitchell, BJ ’82, of CBS News moderated the discussion. The seven panelists were

• Carol Loomis, Senior Editor at Large, Fortune;
• Ralph de la Vega, President and CEO, AT&T Mobility;
• Sue Bostrom, Executive Vice-President and Chief Marketing Officer, Cisco;
• David Dorman, Chairman of the Board, Motorola, Inc.;
• Mark Hoffman, President, CNBC;
• Amy McCombs, President and CEO, Women’s Foundation of California;
• Dave Senay, President and CEO, Fleishman-Hillard.

Below are some of the best of the comments offered by these experts. (I say “some” because to capture all the great insights would be an impossible task.)

 

On the future of handheld wireless devices (Blackberries, iPhones, etc.):

“Devices will be more complex and yet simpler to use.” —de la Vega

“Technology evolves in step functions, not always smoothly.” —Dorman

“We have to have both the content and the devices together.” —Bostrom

“I think it’s (wireless communication) making the world smaller. It’s making the world more accessible.” —Hoffman

“If the market sees value in the new apps, they’ll survive.” —Hoffman

“If you build it, they will come, and they will find it.” —Hoffman

 

On the mainstream media:

“When I graduated, there was no such word as ‘convergence.'” —Mitchell

“The mainstream media have got their head out of the sand and have really started to move forward. … Look at where the elephants are dancing—and you want to make sure they’re dancing and not rushing at you. … I think we have a lot of those elephants at this table.” —McCombs

“There have been many times in history where (people said) the mainstream media would be dead. … I think none of it will die. I think all of it will change. There will be written word … on paper. There will be written word … on wireless devices.” —Hoffman

“I probably have my feet stuck in the mud of the mainstream media more than anyone else (on the panel), and I can tell you, we’re trying to slog out of it. … There’s always going to be a market for trusted information, but the question is who’s gonna pay for it.” —Loomis

“You will see our students inventing the future of journalism (at the new Reynolds Journalism Institute).” —audience member Dean Mills, dean of the Missouri School of Journalism

“Where the quality comes in is (in) the analysis, in the thorough discussion of what’s going on. … If we do let ourselves get away from that which is fundamental in journalism—and that is telling the story—we’re going to have a pretty boring society.” —Hoffman

 

On credibility:

“If you had to pick one thing, I think that’d be the one that you’d pick. … Credibility, which is quality, is at the center of every successful media (outlet).” —Hoffman

“Credibility, regardless of the medium you use, is important. … I think it is better … to just let the credibility sort itself out.” —de la Vega

“It’s the self-policing nature of the Internet.” —Bostrom

 

On citizen journalism:

“When I hear terms like ‘citizen journalist,’ it strikes me like ‘amateur physician.'” —Dorman

“I wonder if people are flocking to places of comfort, rather than places of tension, of dialogue.” —Senay

“The journalist today is engaged in a seminar and not in a one-way lecture anymore.” —McCombs

“Does it scare anyone that there are no gatekeepers? I know it scares me.” —Mitchell

“I can tell you I’ve been misquoted online as many times as I have in the traditional media.” —de la Vega

“The idea of the gatekeeper is very frightening. … The role of the journalist is really the curator, helping (the reader) to wander through the vast array (of information).” —McCombs

 

On future communications and interactions among people:

“It’s not about the power of physical connection, it’s about the human network.” —Bostrom

“Informing people, persuading people, and connecting people with people—that sounds like a great description of the Internet.” —Senay

“The market itself, the killer application, is still people talking to each other.” —Dorman

“I was talking to an 18-year-old who thought e-mail was passé.” —McCombs

 

Advice for current students in the J-school:

“Consider the mainstream media notion a pretty elastic notion.” —Senay

“This is a great time to be in school here. … Be the risk-taker and an entrepreneur.” —McCombs

“Journalism is going to be with us forever. … It’s gonna be more complicated. You’re gonna have to have all the fundamental skills. … It’s gonna get more complicated on one end, but it’s got to stay as pure as its ever been on the other.” —Hoffman

“The opportunity all of you have is to become an expert.” —Bostrom

“Don’t run away from the challenges. Inside every challenge is an opportunity.” —de la Vega

Advertisement

Missouri Photo Workshop

Thursday morning started off a little crazy after my group sighted our first celebrity walking the Mizzou campus, John Anderson from ESPN. After basking in the glory of seeing our idol roaming in our habitat, we quickly ran over to the Missouri Photo Workshop. When we entered the room, there were people packed in rows and sitting on the floors. Many people might have thought that Britney Spears was hosting a seminar because it seems the paparazzi decided to come to the workshop. There were cameras everywhere–in front of me, behind me and to every side. After settling down in the front, I realized I was sitting right next to Kim Komenich in the front row. I was immersed in the action.

Bill Kuykendall started the seminar with a historic and informational slide show on the history of the Photo Workshop. I learned about how much this seminar has grown from a small gathering in Aurora, Missouri to reaching the J-School in Columbia, Missouri. He showed us slides of “Small Town America” pictures that were heartwarming and touching. Kuykendall discussed how these pictures show the fundamental values of Americans and our mythology. These pictures conveyed stories–stories that the photographers wanted to show us. The photographers acted as teachers showing us the importance of these values through pictures. The audience is cooing with oohs and aahs as he flips through the pictures. Everyone in the room was able to connect with the raw essence of human life captured in each photograph.

Next, Kim Komenich stood up to speak to the group. He started off by saying, “There has not been a year where I have not learned something about photography.” Komenich continued by saying that his favorite aspect of photography is the intimacy in photographs. Photographers truly get to live in the world and know the people within it. Then he talked a little bit about Bill Eppridge, who was not present at the seminar. You can view his blog at http://www.billeppridge.com/ . We listened to an audio clip as he reflected on MPW (Missouri Photo Workshop). It is evident how much these great photographers care about pictures as narrative stories. Komenich talked about how Missouri makes the MPW so important. He said, “It’s something about the Midwest. Homecookin’. People have a way of making time for you.” Missouri is the real world and the people make this great state what it is. I glanced at Kim’s notes sitting next to me (being the nosy journalism student that I am) and at the top of his yellow legal pad in doctor’s handwriting is, “Real pictures happen on their time, not yours.” I think that is very relevant to many things in life. However, pictures that truly capture the moment can capture the viewer’s heart. Komenich emphasized that statement multiple times throughout the seminar.

During the question and answer section, my attention was drawn to an older man sitting in the back row. He has been attending MPW since the second one many years ago. His grin fills his entire face. He has lived the “picture perfect” life, recording moments and memories with photographs. He is an inspiration to students, and I had a wonderful time hearing him speak.

Next, a sweet lady in the front row commented on the beginning of MPW. She said, “Show truth with the camera. Early workshops were a bootcamp.” This woman is precious with her light blonde hair and blush pink pants. Her nike shoes are pure as snow white with tiny light baby pink Nike checks. She has the cutest smile plastered on her face. You can tell she is so happy to be a part of this. Her pink cheeks and lips are truly picturesque. She should be in front of the camera instead of behind. Her name is Mimi Smith, and after the seminar, I had the chance of talking to this delightful woman. I will always look up to her.

Overall, even though I am not a photojournalism student, I enjoyed this seminar. Everyone relates to people in pictures because at one point or another, we are those people in the photogrphs. It is a lovely way to capture time and cherish it always. Props to the photo workshop!

More information here!

To contact me, e-mail hmczbd@mizzou.edu.

Two alumni react to Politics and Religion discussion

After the Futures Forum discussion on Politics and Religion—God in the White House, held Thursday morning at the Reynolds Journalism Institute, I spoke with two alumni, Mary McHaney Bebout and Courtney Long James, who attended the session. Below are some of their thoughts.

 

Why did you choose to come to this particular presentation?

CLJ: Probably because of my own personal faith and my interest in how it is covered in the media—and whether it’s fairly covered. Also … as a media buyer for an ad agency, I place media on Beliefnet (the web site for which panelist Dan Gilgoff serves as political editor). They’re one of my clients. So it was interesting to actually see a face and a name.

MMB: It was something my daughter really wanted to see, and I, too, am interested in how faith is covered in the media. And as a lawyer and former journalism student, I always had an interest in political news coverage. And I wanted to see what they would have to say about the election and how faith issues have played a huge role.

 

What did you think of the presentations (given by Gilgoff and Chicago Sun-Times religion columnist Cathleen Falsani)?

CLJ: I thought it was fascinating. I thought it was varied. I thought they had very interesting information for us. I thought they had good dialogue between one another, and you could tell they had a lot of respect for each other, which was interesting. They weren’t afraid to answer any questions. They were very open.

MMB: At first I was disappointed that the original panelists were not able to show. We went to school with Major Garrett (of FOX News, originally scheduled to moderate the session). So we would have liked to see him. … But I thought the coverage was excellent, very professional. … And then I learned more about this center for religious studies (the Center on Religion & the Professions), which I don’t remember even hearing about when we were in school. … So I thought that was interesting, that there are classes (about religion reporting) that students can take.

 

What about the questions and discussion portion of the seminar?

CLJ: I thought that people asked some amazing questions. I thought it was very interesting in this discussion on religion and politics and faith that someone would ask a question that was so obviously very biased. It was full of hate, the way she said, “How could creationism be taught in the 21st Century?” I thought that was amazing.

MMB: I thought one of the best questions was from a student (Laura Kebede), the one about the Rick Warren forum. I thought it was fabulous. I thought it was terrific, and it was raised not by some alum or a person in the media, but a student. And I thought that was the best question that was asked.

CLJ: I agree, that was a great question, very timely. I probably could’ve sat in there for another hour. I found it to be that interesting. Obviously, as they mentioned, by the size of the people that were in the room—that it was standing room only—it was something that a lot of people are thinking about and are interested in learning more about.

MMB: Not only that, I think we’re now going to change our schedule and go to the next session that has to talk about faith.

 

If there are one or two things that you take away from this discussion and the presentations, what would that be?

CLJ: Mine would be that, as a person of faith, I felt that they were very good at reminding me how important it is to be open and understanding of other people’s faith and to not immediately jump to conclusions and labels. I felt it was a very good reminder to be respectful of other people’s faith, whether it’s something you believe in or not. It’s important to hear what people have to say. You don’t have to necessarily agree with them, but that’s part of what’s great about this country is that we have the opportunity to speak of our faith and our religion freely.

MMB: There are three things that hit me. First was the comment that was made (by Gilgoff) that American elections are now won or lost on character. I thought that was a very good point. The second thing that I thought was interesting was, now, our culture has changed or our society’s expectation has changed to the extent that you can no longer take the old-line view and say, “My faith is personal and I want to keep it quiet.” Now, really it’s a requirement, I think, based on what I heard today, for all candidates to be out there, very transparent and open about what they believe. And then they’re judged by the American public about their beliefs. I thought that was an interesting shift. … Then the third thing that I thought was fascinating is that it sounds like faith coverage is going to be most accessible on the Web. I haven’t ever blogged on Beliefnet, but now I probably will.

CLJ: I would be interested to ask (Gilgoff) a question: did any of the faith issues … become so important when we all walked through the Clinton era, where this man was obviously a churchgoer with his wife? … But yet the whole character issue came up as, “Wait a minute, who is this man really? What does he really believe in?” And I just wonder how that played into, all of a sudden, people talking about faith, what’s real and what isn’t, what is really personal, and the whole character issue. … Actually, as an evangelical, I have voted all over the spectrum, because I look at character more than I look at just specific religious preferences.

VIDEO: Politics and Religion—God in the White House

Guest panelists Dan Gilgoff (of Beliefnet.com) and Cathleen Falsani (of the Chicago Sun-Times) spoke at the discussion titled “Politics and Religion—God in the White House,” part of Thursday’s Futures Forum. The discussion, held in room 100-A of the new Reynolds Journalism Institute, was co-sponsored by the Center on Religion & the Professions (CORP) and the Religion Newswriters Association (RNA). Debra Mason, director of CORP and executive director of RNA, introduced the panelists and the topic before Gilgoff and Falsani presented. Following their speeches, Mason moderated a question-and-answer session that covered topics such as the role of faith in Gov. Sarah Palin’s nomination for vice-president, the Rick Warren forum, and the future of religion reporting. Below are video clips from the beginning of the discussion.

 

The first clip gives a panoramic view of room 100-A, with only standing room available minutes ahead of the discussion. During the Q&A session, one attendee suggested that the full seminar room signified Americans’ strong interest in the role of faith in politics.

 

In the second video, Mason discusses CORP, RNA, and the rationale of holding a discussion on politics and religion.

 

In the next clip, Mason delivers a brief history of American reporting on politics and religion, dating back to President Jimmy Carter’s announcement in 1976 that he was a born-again Christian.

 

Here Mason introduces the two guests and briefly discusses their writings. Gilgoff and Falsani stepped in for the three scheduled panelists (Major Garrett of FOX News, Sally Quinn of the Washington Post, and Steve Waldman of Beliefnet.com), none of whom were able to make it to the Centennial celebration.

 

Lastly, in this clip Gilgoff presents his Beliefnet.com blog, the God-o-Meter, which aims to measure Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain’s religious outreach successes and failures on the campaign trail.

New Media and Sports Journalism: Where does it go from here?

Warm greetings, energetic conversations, and laughter filled Neff Auditorium today awaiting part one of “Technology and New Media: Reshaping the Future of Sports, Journalism, and Advocacy.” Whenever the panel started, however,  the audience sat intently in silence listening to some of the biggest names in sports journalism discuss the problems concerning new media outlets and athletics.

Both students and professors, athletes and coaches alike were all in attendance to hear John Anderson of ESPN fame lead the seven panelists in questions primarily concerning the effects of technology on college athletics. The panelists were Mike Alden, University of Missouri Director of Athletics, Phil Bradley of the Major League Baseball Players Association, Myles Brand of the NCAA, VP of Sponsorships at AT&T Jamie Butcher, T.J. Quinn of ESPN, Sonja Steptoe of O’Melveny & Myers LLP, and ESPN.com and Magazine senior writer Wright Thompson.

Brands started the panel with discussion about the exploitation of student athletes. He discussed the commercialization of college athletics and how college athletes are often treated more like professional athletes rather than student athletes. Brands suggested the problems comes from commercialization of athletics by universities caught up in a spending frenzy. After answering questions from his fellow panelists, Brands asks that journalists present games in a way that the athletes are college athletes and not pros. In rebuttal, Quinn stated that it isn’t the journalist’s job to present the values of the NCAA, but to present exactly what he or she sees.

The panel then transitioned to Alden’s discussion of the exploitation of student athletes using new media outlets such as Facebook, Myspace, and text messaging. He stated that he can try to manage student athletes and these medias, but he cannot control them.  His job is to remind student athletes to be responsible when using Facebook, YouTube, or any other site similar to these. Alden also talked about the importance of keeping some things private from the media, such as hiring a new coach, while keeping himself accessible to the media for timing appropriate questioning.

All panel members expressed concern for new media, such as blogs and message boards, allowing anyone to put their opinion into the sports journalism world. Quinn summed it up best by saying, ” We were the gatekeepers, but now there is no gate around it [news].” Thompson explained that there may be 1000 rumors on a message board and 998 may be false, but he, as a reporter, still needed to go through them to find the two posts that are leads to a bigger story. He also said that he will follow a story through to the publication date no matter what another news source, credible or otherwise, publishes about the topic preceding his piece. Steptoe contributed that sometimes these new forms of media can be used as an offensive weapon against the people using blogs and message boards.

After taking questions from the audience, the session recessed for a short break before the second session. Unfortunately, I had another obligation and couldn’t attend Part Two to see what conclusions the panel came to regarding new media and sports journalism. I’d like to end this post with a thought form panelist Phil Bradley.

“You can still be a good journalist covering a bad team, just like a good player on a bad team.” – Phil Bradley on covering sports fairly and accurately

Community Newspapers: Learn How Main Street America Responds to Local News and Advertising

In today’s new media age, many Americans have begun to question the relevance of newspapers. There has been concern about newspaper journalists being laid off and companies being forced to downsize because of decreased interest in the newspaper media. However, while a hundred or so large newspapers may be experiencing some issues keeping their readership constant, today’s forum assured the audience that the more than 22,000 community newspapers across America still have a very important role in this rapidly changing world.

The forum on community newspapers was led by Brian Steffens from the National Newspaper Association, the very same association which our own Walter Williams presided over about ten years before he founded the J-School here at Mizzou. Steffens began by admitting the current media “sounds pretty grim for newspaper,” but then introduced the Associate Director of Research in the Reynolds Institute, Kenneth Fleming, to present a careful study done by our Reynolds Institute.

The presentation looked at the current status and future of community newspapers in today’s Internet age, and “examined the values of community newspapers in serving local democracy in today’s new media environment and explore opportunities.” The studies were conducted in 2005, 2007 and 2008, with the sample population growing more rural each year. The first study concentrated on areas with a population around 100,000, then under 50,000 people in 2007, and finally, the 2008 study only surveyed readers of newspapers with a circulation of less than 25,000. Fortunately for our local journalists, results were strongly in favor of community newspapers.

Statistics from the study showed that in 2005, about 82% of people read a local newspaper at least once a week. Now, in 2008, that proportion is up to 86%. The average time spent reading the newspaper also increased, by about seven minutes in the past three years. Even when compared to other news mediums, community newspapers fared surprisingly well. Newspapers have a two-to-one margin over television as the preferred source for local news, followed by friends and relatives, the radio, and lastly, the Internet.

This startling disuse of the Internet as a local news medium shocked many of the journalists on the forum panel. But in fact, 59% of the population surveyed in 2008 claimed they never use the Internet to check local news. The qualitative studies were also interestingly in the favor of newspapers: While 96% of readers rate the coverage of news in their local newspapers as fair to excellent, only 79% of readers are as pleased with the online news coverage. This trend is continued in other aspects of journalism, such as the accuracy, quality of writing, and fairness of reporting in both mediums. In each category, newspapers beat out Internet sources by about ten percent. Steffens points out, “You might get news online [but] the accuracy and coverage is valued in local newspaper.”

Aside from local news, community newspapers also prove to be an effective method of advertising. Local papers are the primary source for grocery shopping information by a two-to-one margin over in-store advertising. This overwhelming preference for newspapers as a source of shopping information is continued in products such as building, home improvement, home furniture, and major appliances. The only shopping category which is threatened by the Internet is building and home improvement products, but even then the web is 15% behind newspapers.

The main points driven across by the study in the end is that newspapers have not lost their role in our American communities. They continue to be an effective and leading way to advertise and sell products and services, and also the primary source for sports results, local news, and obituaries. The study did find that newspaper readership was strongly correlated to age (older people read more), income (those with higher incomes read more), and gender (females read more).

At the conclusion of the detailed presentation, the panel was invited to the front to answer questions. The all-star cast included:

• Michael Abernathy, Landmark Community Newspapers, Inc. Abernathy oversees more than fifty newspapers in community markets, headquartered in Shelbyville, KY.
• Wally Lage, COO of Rust Communications. Lage is a Mizzou alumni and will be inducted to the Missouri Press Hall of Fame on Friday night.
• Dave Berry, Community Publishers, Inc. Berry’s papers are circulated in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. He runs operations in Springfield and is a member of the NAA Board of Directors.
• Ralph Gage, The World Company and WorldWest LLC. Gage runs the special projects division.
• Steve Haynes, The Oberlin Herald and Nor’West Newspapers. Haynes is also the President of NNA and publishes half a dozen papers in northwest Kansas.

Reflecting on the accuracy of Fleming’s presentation, the panel agreed that the study was a fair statistical analysis of community newspapers in America. Abernathy stated, “Research that [I have seen] seemed to match the belief that we have in the strength of community newspapers.” Haynes also added that the figures “pretty much reflect we we see [in Nor’West Newspapers].” Berry concurred with the other panelists, but comically added, “I believe the data that’s in this report, it’s pretty revealing, but I think we need to be careful not to put too much lipstick on the pig.”

Enduring Values in Radio and Television

As a broadcast journalism-hopeful student, I was excited to sit in on this discussion, but nothing could have prepared me for the intensely passionate words that passed around the beautiful lecture hall in Neff. As alums shared snippets of memories of various teachers and classes taken in that very room, everything became a bit clearer–these are real people, and one day I could join them.

But the topic of discussion was, fortunately for others, not my own inclusion to their ranks, but rather where my choice of work will take me in five, ten, twenty, fifty years. More importantly, what is happening in broadcast journalism today?

Two minutes behind schedule, Kent Collins commenced what would become a slew of speculations on the future of journalism with the assurance that “we’re on time” according to broadcast. After pointing out celebrities such as “the gury of all gurus” Rod Gillett, Collins deferred to chief editor of the MissouriNet Bob Priddy.

Providing a rather light introduction before the onslaught, Priddy reminisced about his own experience at  MU before shoving the cold, hard facts under the noses of all present: we are all “playing with a deck in which all fifty-two cards are wild.”

John Ferrugia contributed his own opinion: “news is a product.” He spoke about the awards that various news stations can receive and that, while the audience cares very little about the awards themselves, the standards they represent that each honored news station meets are of the utmost importance to viewers.

The goal of all journalism, regardless of medium, is to uphold the first amendment to ensure democracy.

Most people would agree. Voters glean their information from the Internet and television much more than from newspapers and magazines, though both are still viable options. Voters then take part in our fundamental democratic right–electing members to the great institution, the government.

Joe Bergantino took over for Ferrugia and agreed that news has become a product of marketing and advertising over the past thirty years. It is now necessary to return to our fundamental values. “Somebody had to hold the powerful accountable,” thus the creation of journalism.

We as journalists currently face “a crisis point in our profession,” says Bergantino. It is now time to return to our jobs as national watchdogs, rather than submit to those who would shape the news.

News Director for KOMU-TV Stacey Woelfel shared his own insights. The School of Journalism has had to change its teaching to keep up with technology and the enterprise companies. It has become difficult to keep in line with Radio and Television’s enduring values while keeping students marketable to those fields.

The conversation switched to the importance of content. “Content will sell,” says Ferrugia. “People want to know” and the journalist is a content-provider. After showing an excerpt from his own project on rape and sexual assault within the military, Ferrugia proudly announced a change in the institution. A sexual assault officer is now stationed in every military unit.

Stories like that are hard to come by, and what is more, economics drive stories. The “good” stories like Ferrugia’s cost a good deal of money and, more importantly, time. Few stations are willing to sacrifice so much for a story that might not sell to an audience. Furthermore, some journalists fear that management may choose not to air a story that would be unappealing to a marketing agency. One member of the audience, also a part of tv management, retorted, “if you can’t sell me” then it’s not worth airing. That seems to uphold the “good content sells” theory.

While the future remains largely unknown thanks to the rapid increase in technology like iPods, YouTube, and phones delivering news as well as the fast decline of traditional print, Bergantino identifies the challenge in prediction: “people will watch, the question is where.”

Institutional Rumblings and Modernization

by Kristina Casagrand and Chad Hesson

When Chad Hesson and I met before the event at 1:15, in our dress shirts and jeans, YouTube pins tacked to our messenger bags, we struck an appropriate image of freshmen trying to act experienced.  We arrived early, we looked sharp, but we sat at the back of the room, not daring to take a place at the fancy tables with the alumni. We’re the bloggers.  They’re the professionals.

The question of professionalism permeated the Institutional Rumblings and Modernization roundtable.  A board of distinguished MU grads and professors, who were obviously bribed into writing a book, discussed their contributions to Journalism—1908: Birth of a Profession.

Bill Taft, an ornery elderly man of the distinguished age of 93, composed a chapter of the book detailing the history of newspapers up to 1908. He adequately described them as country newspapers and rural publications, simply because those were the communities before that time. The outlook towards journalism must have been along the lines of  “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks,” but surely a more archaic phrase.  He claimed that on the edges of the 20th century, the idea was to simply change the demographics and not the wording.

Next we heard about Stephen Banning’s research (part of which he attributed to resources in Taft’s basement) on the influence of press associations in 1908.  In particular, the Missouri Press Association formed in 1867 to bring about unity in the field.  At the time, there were too many puff pieces, too many untrained editors.  And journalism, noted Banning, is “too noble of a calling to be left untrained.”

Lee Wilkins then “teased out the philosophical roots” of founding the journalism school, noting that journalists should be loyal to the public, only to be cancelled out by Fred Blevens’ talk of political and partisan press in 1908.  He described how some newspapers boasted how much control they had over public policy, and how newspapermen were hired to run campaigns, ending his thought with “and Olbermann and Matthews got the axe?”

Advertising in 1908 had yet to blossom into its current artistic force it is now, and Caryl Cooper’s enthusiasm for the subject mirrors the lack of inspiration educators felt for the field at the time.

During the question-and-answer session an alumnus argued that journalism is not a profession, saying it’s “not the same thing as what you have institutionalized in medicine and law.”  Betty Winfield countered, citing Walter Williams’ creed as proof of the profession.

Yet with technology and blogs rising as a form of communication it’s becoming harder to define journalism and professionalism.  One of the panel speakers pointed out that in the 1700’s, newspapers carried more analytic and critical essay writing.  Journalists have been working with the information collection model that has served us very well for 100 years, he said, and now we have a chance to examine that model.  He also added:

“We are people of moral worth beyond the money that we earn.  We count in a way that’s rooted in ethics and morals.  We need to recover OUR part of that conversation.”

Do bloggers reflect the new model, a return to the critical/analytic side of the pendulum?  We may not be professionals (yet), but as bloggers, we’re definitely the future.