Who needs journalism schools? Most of the world, by god!

Being a journalist in the 21st century means an existence marked by never-ending cynical annoyance at the world, financial insecurity and constant existential crises. As traditional journalistic institutions continue to fall, it seems as though nearly everyone in this industry is nervously lined up against a wall, peering around neurotically  at who the firing squad of market forces and new media technology takes out next.

Much of the industry is dying because of its inability to adapt to the 21st century. Parts of it were merely killed off by shareholders. Having been educated as this transition began taking place, I consider myself lucky that I was given many tools that will help me survive as a part of this new hybrid species of reporters. Despite this, I remain firmly opposed to the (increasingly popular) idea that this slow roll of destruction through the industry is a good thing.

Sure, volumes have been written on how this new technology is democratizing information-sharing and increasing access to news for the masses. That’s all good, even if it means our pockets getting lighter. What I refuse to accept is that the very idea of a “journalist” should be stricken from society.

A couple of blog posts recently caused a stir through the universe of media-watchers — both proposing exactly that: journalism is doomed to fail as an institution, and furthermore it will soon no longer exist as a concept.

Chris Lynch, a former journalist and current media blogger, wrote in the Lynch Blog that as the news-reading audience gets smaller, the “notion of being a professional journalist who is merely an objective observer of a topic or industry will officially fade in the coming years. This is a good thing, since it was a stupid fantasy that it should be like that anyway.”

That point was soon picked up by Gawker in a column called “Journalism Schools May Die. Good.” Which said, “Fusty academia, pointless courses on ‘new media’ and endless essay-masturbation over ethics is pointless anyway.”

I should begin my exasperated response by saying that I understand the way technology is changing the universe, including that media audiences are more and more looking for information sources that reinforce their preexisting take on reality, and that objectivity — already an amorphous, unreachable goal — is simply out of fashion.

But even if objectivity is a lost concept in the 21st century media landscape, then by god, let’s hope that professionalism remains. Part of my reaction comes from the fact that I am currently teaching journalism in the Republic of Georgia, a place where every person I have asked has told me that they can’t believe most of the information disseminated by their country’s media. This has come as nearly all of the nation’s broadcast media have gradually been collected by pro-government owners (who hide behind shady offshore companies) and the nation’s journalists have largely given into laziness and self-censorship to present a media product that is neither informative, nor is it, increasingly, true.

Even the independent Georgian print media publish rumors, editorialize constantly and do little actual reporting. Nearly all professors of journalism in the country were educated during the Soviet times where this behavior was normal, and core principles of Western “elitist” journalism were not utilized. Even as I attempt to impress upon my students basic tenants of news writing I am forced to struggle against the endless poor examples presented by a media landscape marked by unprofessionalism and bad reporting.

“What do you mean I can’t publish whatever I think about this in news articles? Everyone else is doing it.”

One particularly dramatic example of how low Georgian media has stooped occurred March 13, when the Georgian broadcast channel, Imedi, broadcast a fake news report in which Russia invaded Georgia, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was assassinated and opposition figures (which the broadcast hoped to smear as pro-Russian) seized power. This was the only “news” show on in Georgia at the time, and as such, widespread panic sent people fleeing population centers and several people — many of whom had close relatives in the Georgian military — experienced fatal heart attacks.

The U.S., British and French embassies in Tbilisi all condemned the “irresponsible” report, as did NATO. It would be easy to look a the report as a result of an “independent” media station used for propaganda purposes, and it was. But it was also the sign of something much larger — that the journalists involved were either complicit, or saw nothing wrong with the reckless political smear meant to cause panic and reinforce a sense of fear in a country that watched as Russian tanks routed its army and streamed towards their capital less than two years ago.

In my experience as a journalist working here I have noted countless instances of breaches of ethical codes or simply lazy reporting by local reporters — asking a maximum of one or two questions during and interview or simply allowing officials to speak at press conferences and declining to ask them anything afterwards. I doubt I’d find large differences in the reporters from most developing or undeveloped countries. And what do these places lack that the developed world has? — reputable journalism schools and a culture of professionalism.

The Gawker article notes that: “People skills, empathy, dogged persistence and a sense of honesty and perspective cannot be taught.” That’s true, but it is still important to train people to apply all of those qualities to the job of reporting. Learning to think like a journalist is a process.

Furthermore, both articles seem to assume that in the competitive realm of the internet, the truth will come out somehow anyway. Well, citizens of Georgia, Russia, and most other countries other than China and Cuba have unfettered access to the internet, and yet there are few decent internet news resources in these countries either. The only news about the region by local sources to find online is of relatively similar quality.

Even in a media-saturated country like the United States, there will still be a need for professional news gatherers, whatever form they take. And for those who still fantasize about a world without such self-important gatekeepers of information, I recommend a trip to Tbilisi.