by Roy Peter Clark
Roy Peter Clark is senior scholar at The Poynter Institute. He is the founder of the Writing Center at the Institute, and is the co-author of Coaching Writers.

Academic criticism of the media, from universities and think tanks, is widely dismissed by working stiffs, some of whom can't wait to quit the news business to join the critics. This dismissal should not be misunderstood. It is more ritualistic than heartfelt, more tribal than professional. Reporters may act as if attacks on journalism go in one ear and out the other, but a well-aimed dart may hit a few brain cells on its flight.

Consider these influential critics who have come from the academy:

* Noam Chomsky, one of the century's great linguists, argues that the American media, dominated by business interests, limit the range of political debate in America, especially perspectives on the left.

* Presidential scholar James David Barber urged the press to go beyond the horse race and take into account a candidate's biography as a predictor of service.

* Kathleen Hall Jamieson is among those who continue to study political campaigns, revealing the manipulative ways they are run and covered.

* Michael Schudson discourages journalists from adopting any simplistic notions of objectivity or citizenship. His work as a historian reveals the ways ideas about the press and its purposes evolve.

* Philip Meyer, once a journalist himself, continues to encourage journalists to expand their investigative workbench to include the tools of social science research.

* Henry Louis Gates, Jr., in his carefully crafted analyses of American culture and history, challenges journalists to understand the limitations of mainstream reporting and commentary on communities that differ from their own.

* James Carey studies the stories journalists tell about themselves and reveals their strengths and weaknesses. He also makes the case that some journalistic story forms, created in previous generations, have outlived their usefulness to contemporary democratic life.

* Ben Bagdikian, another former journalist, critiques forms of media ownership and their influence on news coverage, a stream of criticism that has been advanced to the global level by Robert W. McChesney.

I call those critics "practical scholars." They have counterparts within news or journalism-based organizations, whom I call "reflective practitioners." They include the likes of E.J. Dionne, Jr., David Broder, Jonathan Alter, Michael Janeway, Tom Rosenstiel, and Bill Kovach. Together the scholars and journalists form a powerful force for change within journalism. Some work for a "restoration" of journalism values. Others seek more of a "reformation." Both groups find the status quo unacceptable.

It would be hard to find a scholar/critic whose work has been more influential than New York University's Jay Rosen. His new book What Are Journalists For? (cjr, November/December) tells the story of his journey of discovery from Buffalo news intern, to journalism professor, to one of the leaders of the public journalism movement.

His story is instructive for those scholars who seek to influence the practice of daily journalism. For Rosen was not content to drop off prints of scholarly articles from a hot air balloon. Instead, he hooked up with sympathetic partners in the field, who found in Rosen's ideas the seeds for solving some powerful problems: disintegrating communities, declining readership, and cynicism in the newsroom. Rosen's willingness to immerse himself in the practice of journalists, to learn their routines and conventional frames for telling stories, intensified the power of his ideas.

Rosen's takes on journalism and democracy shook the press and inflamed critics. His ability to avoid being ignored was the result of his considerable gifts as a speaker, writer, listener, thinker, and debater. But Rosen was also a channeler to journalists of a significant stream of scholarship, from John Dewey to James Carey. Unlike the pessimistic Walter Lippmann, Dewey and Carey who followed him argued that public life could be improved through communication and conversation, and that journalists could play a formative role.

An odder example of the influence of academic criticism of the press comes from the continuing work of a retired English professor from the University of New Hampshire. Donald M. Murray is seventy-five years old and worked on only four books last year. In 1954 he was the youngest person ever to win a Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing, and he still writes a column for The Boston Globe. Both Rosen and Murray draw maps that other scholarly critics might follow: climb down from your steed and jog in the fields; link the library to the workshop; challenge journalists with ideas tied to techniques; and don't be afraid when they run away. Journalists run dashes, not marathons. Eventually you'll catch them.

cjr  |  archive  |  resources  |  contact  |  search  |  subscribe