Welcome to SPJ Blogs Sign in | Join | Help

A rant from Iowa State

Michael Bugeja directs a journalism school in 21st Century America, where he preaches that the Internet and new technology is “the scorpion” that will poison and kill journalism.

In what I consider the best argument against tenure, Bugeja cursed the connected world that is rapidly passing him by in the keynote address at our Midwest regional spring conference for the Society of Professional Journalists.  The theme of the conference?  Convergence of new media.  

Yes, this guy.  Bugeja says new gadgetry has us chained to our newsroom desks, forcing us to do all of our reporting through the telephone and email.  By the way, he says telephones and telegraphs are not bad.  Apparently, he thinks any innovation that happened, say, after Henry Ford, is dooming us.

“I don’t know when he was last in a newsroom,” said Jared Strong of the Des Moines Register, who sat in on the panel “What I Wish I Had Learned in Journalism School But  Didn’t.”

If Bugeja had bothered to observe some modern newsrooms, he would know that technology actually allows me to get out of the office more, be where the news is, because I’m always connected through my smart phone, my email and my ability to deliver the news through a variety of media, including Twitter.

Of course, Bugeja hates Twitter.  And Facebook.  And really any of the ways that people like to connect now and trade information.

I began covering his speech on Twitter.

Andy Dickinson answered that maybe Bugeja is just trying to get attention.

The most disturbing part of Bugeja’s views is, he could be any of our bosses.  In many newsrooms across the country, people are resisting change with his same fervor, as the world changes around us.  In his speech, he kept referring to himself as “a reporter,” as if that some how brought him out of his academic daydream and down to reality with the rest of us.  It didn’t.

If he really worked as a reporter, in a world without tenure, he would have to face the realities of technology.  He would have to learn new ways or reporting, or he would soon be without a job.  He would soon be called into an editor’s office and be told to get up to speed, or be replaced.  But he doesn’t work in that world of declining circulations and ad revenue that’s moving to the web.  So he can stick his head up his campus and pretend that he knows best.

I felt bad for the journalism students I met at Iowa State who are bright and ambitious and having to listen to this. I felt bad for the older journalists in the room, meaning about my age, because some were nodding and smiling as if this were really making sense.

Still, Bugeja showed he has a glimmer of recognition for reality. For all his resistance, he understands the Web can produce transparency in journalism, allowing our audience to study our notes, our source documents, to hear our interviews.

Don’t feel sorry for his students, either.  They’re smart enough to see the ironies of the chancing media world around them and how out of touch the director of their school seems to be.

“The thing is,” one student told me about Bugeja, “you can only reach him by email.”

Published Thursday, April 10, 2008 1:04 AM by RonSylvester
Filed Under: ,

Comments

# re: A rant from Iowa State

Thursday, April 10, 2008 1:39 PM by Michael Bugeja
This is a post on a site associated with the Society of Professional Journalists that can benefit from more professionalism and journalism, for that matter.

Let's justify that statement:

1. First paragraph: Sarcasm about "21st Century" indicating some level of being a Luddite or lost in some other past time zone. I write for The Futurist because I not only know how to use technology but also to design technological platforms. My bio is readily available online as well as my research in as much as I operate five Web sites.

2. Second paragraph: Here we have a personal slur about my not deserving tenure, which I earned before most of my students were born; but before lapsing again into stereotypes, the writer of this post representing SPJ neglects to mention that I have published two new media journalism books since 2003 with Oxford University Press. Each sentence was fact-checked in projects reviewed meticulously by outside technologists and journalists. Could it possible be that my presentation was informed?

3.Third paragraph: I said each new technological innovation from the telegraph to the telephone to the Internet, takes us one step further from interpersonal contact with our sources. The comments attributed to me were not said. For verification, read the fourth chapter of Interpersonal Divide: The Search for Community in a Technological Age, which won the Clifford Christians Award for research in media ethics. You'll get an overview of the history of media and how society and the industry coped with great technological change in other eras.

4. Fourth paragraph: Jared Strong, whom I know and admire, is entitled to his opinion; but his question, if quoted accurately, deserves a reply concerning my being in a newsroom: I write for major pubications in my off hours, as my reportage documents. I did more than 150 interviews for my latest book, Living Ethics Across Media Platforms, which provides solutions to complex digital issues in the modern newsroom. Here's the link: http://www.livingethics.org.

I could go explicating this unfortunate post; but that is not the point. This is the typical reaction of someone who has not done the reading or the research or has yet to encounter new media criticism, or who believes blogs are free of the principles that SPJ stands for (and I am a long-standing member, deserving a modicum of respect) and in doing that, proves the point of my research and my presentation.

If anyone would like to read my reportage, and see first-hand how I use Internet to verify my sources, please go to: http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2007/11/2007111201c/careers.html

You'll see that I not only report; I use the medium to back up my facts. I write for online journalism and education magazines, and use the medium again to take my readers to primary and secondary sources, building trust.

This is the message that I deliver as I travel across the country to keynote ethics conferences and consult with industry. The ridiculous notion, again alluded here, that I am seeking attention, not only is yet another stereotype, but again omits the point that I made repeatedly in my SPJ talk: I am protecting the Fourth Estate and trying to prevent media consolidation.

I spoke of a world with too few journalists because of the investment in technology at the expense of the people. I gave solutions to adjust for new media so that we can use it responsibly.

The new media advocates at that conference had their consciousness shaken because someone dared to raise another viewpoint.

Normally, I'd end the post here, if this was not associated with SPJ. But in as much as it is, why don't readers re-read the post above and my response to it and decide for themselves:

1. Who is the real reporter and who is not?
2. Who is upholding SPJ principles and who is not?
3. Who resorted to personal attack and who did not?

# re: A rant from Iowa State

Thursday, April 10, 2008 8:56 PM by RonSylvester
Thanks for the comments, Michael. I'm glad to see you join the conversation of the electronic community, at least when it suits you.

I know you'd much rather discuss this, as we would've in the past, on bar stools or over a cup of coffee.  But then we'd be just two cranky old guys arguing in some room.  That's what I like about digital communication:  we can continue the conversation over distance, and others can join in, if they'd like.

You say that hurts our ability to interact on a personal level.  What I've seen is places like Facebook and MySpace have helped grow my circle of friends, and those of my teens, and your students.  We don't only exist on the Internet, but we make connections and then follow up on a personal basis.  Or we meet people, and then become their friends in social networking so we can keep in touch.  You think there are great philosophical differences, but really to me, they're not much different than letter writing, except for faster delivery.  But that's just my own experience.

Now please don't take any of what I've written personally.  It's your ideas I have a problem with.  I'm surprised that with these views, in the environment journalism currently is battling, that you aren't used to criticism.

The tenure comment, for example, wasn't about you as an individual and whether or not you deserve your job.  But think about the tenure and security you have, compared to those outside the academia - thousands of them - who are losing their jobs as print declines and media companies struggle to make a profit from new technology.

People who are resisting the change are among the first to go.  And they have a lot to offer in the way of experience and good journalism values.  But just as the people I saw who could not let go of their IBM electric typewriters, when we moved to those video display terminals with the green screens and blinking cursors. Those who cannot make the move to electronic delivery are finding themselves at the mercy of early retirements and buyouts.

This is what those of us who spend our lives in the newsrooms are seeing: People who think like you do are losing their jobs.  

As for journalistic ideals, we've always recognized fair comment and criticism, when it is labeled as such.  I think the title of a "rant" fits that label.

Also, anyone who reads this blog beyond items that might bear their own name, will notice I add my views and opinions regularly.

No, don't take any of these comments personally.  It's about ideas.

My blog, however, is personal, and I've always said so.  It is about my personal learning as an experienced, and even old, journalist trying to learn new ways of delivering information.  It's about my personal struggles with the way the industry is changing.

Your speech represented, for me, a part of that struggle many of us are going through with new technology.  That's why I included it here.

And to begin a conversation.  I hope others will join it.

If not, even with the new technology, we're just two cranky old guys arguing in some (cyber) room. Then I guess it shows that not much really changes after all.

Now as for my assumptions, I'm assuming you'll want the last word...

# re: A rant from Iowa State

Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:16 PM by Michael Bugeja
Look, the debate has two sides. Or many sides. I'm used to that. When the criticism of me or my research is on point or even refutes my point, I acknowledge that and feel a sense of relief. I acknowledge that I was wrong, and then feel good because I learned something.

I am used to personal attacks, even hate mail, from those who disagree with my stance; what I am not used to, however, is journalists associated with SPJ commenting on an SPJ event without an adequate fact base, with no respect for the platform they profess to uphold, which is what you did and which is why I am holding you accountable.

Aso, you don't report that someone said something he or she did not, such as you did in your first post: "By the way, he says telephones and telegraphs are not bad."

This is called invention.  

Everything I said at SPJ was researched, including the allusion to the scorpion, which is in reference to Ellul who said the nature of technology is neither moral nor immoral; it is amoral. It changes radically whatever it touches without being changed much at all. That is its nature.

You heard that, too.

All you proved in your first post is that technology's scorpion nature changed you and your respect for truth and accuracy.

Assess the difference in tone of voice alone in your second post, which is fine and informative, even if I disagree with it.

The but irony, Ron, is that you have to respect this platform, personal blog or no, as I have done in my response to you and you did in your second post to me, because we are setting the standard as members of SPJ, not only in assessing whose view is correct or wrong, but in how we go about the argument.

You keep making assumptions when you say I have tenure and imply that I am not taking risks. I am a director of a journalism school who has to rely on corporate benefactors to finance a large part of my operation. However, beyond that, I am taking on presidents and provosts of institutions who are literally picking the pockets of our students by teching up to such extent that we now have universal access to Internet ... but not universal access to education.

Cause and effect here correlate.

I'll close with this:

You linked to a story about me in The Des Moines Register, which mentions a blogger at major university calling me "an old professor"; there is speculation in his blog as well that I am a bad teacher. (Entire student bodies at research institutions have voted me outstanding, which is not to brag, but to point out the wrong-headedness of  stereotypical assumptions.)

When I corrected the record, immediately the level of discourse rose, as it did with you. He also apologized. And now I see that he is commenting on other blogs and sites with the same level of respect for the platform.

It is our responsibility to use new media platforms with the same respect for its power as we did with old media. I read your other posts today. They are also fine and informative, contemplative, even.

You owe the same treatment to those who disagree with you, especially in SPJ.





# re: A rant from Iowa State

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:00 PM by JHop
Ron, I hope you didn't intend to be as hostile to Michael Bugeja as your remarks come across. Your tone is what I'd expect in a piece about some charlatan. He doesn't deserve that.

As to substance, I'll comment today on just one thought -- that the new technology could kill journalism. The potential for that to happen has been evident for several years now. You know how the business model that supported journalism through the 19th and 20th centuries is being rapidly eroded by ventures that lift and distribute content from ink-on-paper media.  So far, the news aggregators and bloggers that are so rapidly gaining reader market share are contributing only tiny resources to reporting the news.  If the newspapers shrink to a skeleton, as readers and eventually advertisers leave them, where would journalism be?  Would you have us believe that on that day, Google and Yahoo! and the bloggers will suddenly send reporters onto the streets and into the courthouses and legislative halls to gather the news?

I'm a blogger myself and take some pride in delivering original content along with links and comments on what others write.  I do use the telephone and I search and surf quite effectively -- but every time I go outside to see what I may write about, it pays off in detail and perspective that would have escaped my browser.  Were I not retired, there is no way I could give that reporting the time that I do.  

You may be right that journalism in some form will survive Web 2.0.  But journalism without fear or favor, journalism that ferrets out all sides of important issues, that kind of journalism costs serious money.  Who's going to pay for it?

# re: A rant from Iowa State

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:10 PM by RonSylvester
Well, one place that’s going to pay for it is The New York Times. As Arthur Sulzberger told Business Week:

"Within our lifetimes, the distribution of news and information is going to shift to broadband," Sulzberger says. "We must enter the broadband world having mastered the three key skill sets -- print, Internet, and video -- because that's what's going to ensure the future of this news organization in the years ahead."

The newspaper I work for, newspapers across the country, are going to shift to online, as their readers are already doing.  While revenues may be slower to catch up, they eventually well.  I’m also confident there will be other models delivering the news, which will pay for content.  The audience, I don’t think, will change in its expectations.  They will demand good information.  They will want the kind of watchdog reporting that is the hallmark of democracy.

And if they don’t find it from the traditional media sources, others will take their place.  Yes, and some may even be called Yahoo! Or Google or BBC.  Or even some company we haven’t even imagined yet.

That’s where I disagree with the professor.  Journalism will live.  Only the delivery will change.  And people who want to practice good journalism had better change with it.

# re: A rant from Iowa State

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 11:44 AM by Michael Bugeja
Ron,

Your last post concerns me as much as your earlier ones, particularly the final two paragraphs.

Let's deal now with fact based on the presentation rather than your interpretation thereof:

1. In my introduction, I stated that I had a PowerPoint for this presentation but that I would simply use the printed slides and deliver the content interpersonally. That's important, because I am going to present information from those slides.

2. My SPJ presentation was a top paper, peer reviewed in the media ethics division, in last year's paper competition by the Association for Education in Journalism and Education.

3. The presentation in chapter form was selected for publication in Handbook of Media Ethics to be published by Clifford Christians and Lee Wilkins (Missouri), leaders in our field.

4. The same presentation was received enthusiastically at a major ethics conference in Oklahoma earlier in the year that is still being discussed online.

Now to your ending comments:

The presentation takes for granted that the delivery system already has changed; its goal was to describe that system and the programming thereof so that journalists could transcent its nature--the one that too often is scorpion-like and poisons the digital ink well, as this blog chain documents.

Here are my recommendations, taken verbatim from my slides, which you heard and did not address. So why don't you do that now, in a response, point by point, to showcase whether you agree or disagree with them:

 Online values should emphasize locality, culture and time. The objective is to spark interaction in community.

 News happens in real space, which mobile technology facilitates. Witness the public to safeguard the public trust.

 Universals are inclusive because of time, place and culture. Unlike consumer profiling, no group is left out.

 Rebuild the wall between news and advertising. Tear down the one between you and community.

 Put place back in beats, hire more reporters, make them visible. Distinguish between news and comments.

 Make visitors click to post their views on a new page where rules for discourse appear above the comment box. Require real names to ensure higher civility and weed out reporters praising their stories under cover of anonymity.

 Remember in your writing that people love stories because life has beginnings, middles and ends.  
_____________________________

I have defended my research, my reporting and my reputation on this blog without resorting to name-calling or misrepresentation. It's time that I received the same treatment from you, and you can begin by stating whether you agree or disgaree with those recommendations above and by making an apology online for how you presented my work and my character in the posts above.


Anonymous comments are disabled. Please log in or create an account to comment on this article.