Journalism as practice informed by theory

Note: Blog posts tagged "J117" (such as this one) are requirements for the Online Journalism class I'm taking this semester. See all of my J117-related posts.

Journalism education is a funny thing: it attempts to teach what can be learned only on the field. I know this from personal experience. Even in classroom discussions, I learn the most not from PowerPoint presentations, but from the anecdotes my professors share in between slides.

Jeff Jarvis is right when he says that the industry is extremely disruptive. But it's wrong to conclude from this that Journalism schools should be teaching the "journalism of the future." That's an entirely different boat. The reason is simple: because of the rate of acceleration of technologies, what we think of today as "the future" may be part of the past tomorrow.

Bradshaw's right: now's a good time to change the paradigm of journalism education and start teaching the art of journalism more than "how to be journalists." I personally think it should have been done this way from the start, and not just because of the rapid changes we have been experiencing. At any rate, now's a good time as any.

I think what Bradley means is that journalism isn't a question of how to use certain tools or how to write in this medium or that. Amidst rapidly changing technologies, only the core values of journalism will be worth retaining in the future, which is why, as Jarvis suggests, J-schools should focus on teaching the value of persistent legwork, strict verification, and ethics.

But even then, these core values of journalism are merely theoretical. How do we give them meaning? Through more rigorous practice. In UP, for example, just one internship course isn't enough. The Journalism department could be organized as a massive newsroom that produces news for the college's media outlets. Practice should be at the root of our curriculum, not just a single course number to be taken during our last summer term in college.

Journalism, after all, is a practice, and theory is only supposed to serve as a guide towards an excellent practice of journalism, no matter the technology or medium.

UP is on strike.

Starting yesterday, the University of the Philippines Diliman went on strike to oppose the Aquino government's continuing neglect of its responsibility to state universities and colleges.

San Juan Representative JV Ejercito paid a visit to the AS steps, where youth leaders, UP officials and some of his fellow congressmen spoke for greater state subsidy. He said more than 100 lawmakers have signed a manifesto supporting the call for state support for tertiary schools.

Student Regent Kristina Conti said such a manifesto, though nice, is really an empty gesture because there isn't any overt action accompanying it. Sure, you want more financial support for state universities, but where's the money?

Kabataan Partylist Representative Mong Palatino, meanwhile, said that however determined Congress might be to increase the budget of SUCs, Aquino will still have the final say. Even if both houses of Congress agree to add to the budget of state schools, when the budget bill reaches Aquino's desk he can still choose to veto such additions. This is why it's a good idea to pressure Malacañang and the Department of Budget and Management about state subsidy for SUCs, he says.

In 2010, Aquino said, "We are gradually reducing the subsidy to SUCs to push them toward becoming self-sufficient and financially independent" because they had the "ability to raise their income." By income-raising ability, he probably means leasing public lands meant for academic use in shady and nonbeneficial deals, or shifting the burden to supposedly state-funded scholars by charging them higher tuition and laboratory fees.

The sad truth is that Aquino's outlook on quality state-supported tertiary education in the Philippines is this: "I don't give a shit." He does not care about training and creating our future engineers, social scientists, artists, journalists, filmmakers and novelists. He does not care about securing the country's industrial, cultural and social future.

He does not care about the future of this country.

His communications team will, of course, say that he does, and will point to his myopic programs—the Conditional Cash Transfer and Public-Private Partnerships—as evidence. Perhaps some will believe their drivel.

But those of us who know what's really at stake, who really understand why there is such an uproar over Aquino's admitted policy on quality tertiary education in this country, know that he has no sense of history, that he has a complete lack of ability to see beyond the horizon. Any president who looks at quality college education as an unwanted burden on the state does not understand what quality college education really means, especially if that president went to a private university and is a rich haciendero.

It's only been two years since his ascent to power, but we all know that for all the history and prestige he used to climb to the top, he will be a forgettable president.

We will not forget.