After reading an exceedingly lengthy blog post by Mark Glaser I am left scratching my head and rubbing my eyes. In 2300 (!) words, Glaser, a media critic for PBS, details the kerfuffle that ensued when a NYU undergrad, Alana Taylor wrote about her disappointment in the university’s comprehension of new media.
I disagree whole heartedly with Taylor and I have doubts about Glaser’s assertions.
Taylor set off alarm bells at NYU by essentially called her professor an old fogey, because the professor wasn’t aware of many trends in technology and blogging The professor, who forces Taylor to bring a physical copy of the Times to class, read the blog post, felt it was intrusive and banned Taylor from any further blogging about what happens in the class.
I take issue with Taylor’s attack. A large part of the reason that I have this blog is because of New York University, where I am enrolled in the graduate journalism program. For the course I’m taking we must have a blog. We were required to blog last fall, also. We’re only required to produce 2 posts a week, hardly a rigorous, true blogging experience. When I interned at Silicon Alley Insider, an internship I wouldn’t have gotten without NYU’s backing, I saw the authors there posting 10 times a day.
Regardless, the important thing to take away is that we were forced from day one to reconcile the medium of blogging. And well we should, it is not a fringe element. Look at Dealbook on the New York Times website or All Things D as part of the Wall Street Journal’s network. Those are thoroughly reported news sources, as well as places of useful aggregation. My exposure to this medium and those sites can be very easily traced to education I received in journalism courses at NYU.
Glaser’s post doesn’t take a stance on the quality of new journalism education, but rather the hypocrisy of encouraging blogging, then banning it all together. I take issue with this stance as well.
When Glaser defends Taylor’s right to post anything she hears, he throws out basic reporting principles. One of the first things I was taught at school, was to establish the ground rules for an interview with a source before talking. Is this on background, on record, or not for attribution? We have dozens of speakers come in from the Financial Times, Forbes, The Journal and they all say, “this is on background, I don’t want this to appear on your personal blog.” And no one complains. Its part of being a reporter.
I will not pretend I fully grasp the complex laws that control free speech, but I understand common decency in reporting. Taylor’s blog post followed in the tradition of many reporters who report from inside, such as Michael Lewis and his brilliant Liar’s Poker, though he did additional reporting beyond mere memoir writing. It also follows in the less admirable style of Gawker, often picking a fight for the sake of it. When Taylor took her shots at the teacher in a very public way, she didn’t bother asking for comment from the teacher or even the department.
The issue Taylor laments–is journalism school adequately preparing students for the current media landscape–is worthy of debate. However, just spouting off from her perspective does little to enhance the conversation. It polarizes the university’s faculty and students, while also causing some people to cast aspersions at blogging, deriding it as navel gazing unrelated to reporting.
Obviously, blogging is reporting. Since I learned that at NYU, I’ve got to wonder where exactly Taylor goes to school.
0 Responses to “A Tale Of Two NYUs”