tcs.cam.ac.uk |
Lately, I seem to be
coming up against a number of academics who hate the faintest whiff of
journalism.
“Journalists are overly
emotional,” one sniffed, nose resolutely in the air. “The writing is too sensational and of
dubious merit.”
“There is no careful
reasoning in journalism,” another added.
“There’s not even a recognizable logic to it. It’s all sensational idiocy written by
lemmings. They follow one another right
over the cliff.”
It is the same disdain
reserved for Wikipedia (Garbage, I tell you!) and Google searches (A plagiarist’s
only friend!).
A quick search of much
maligned Google yielded the following, courtesy of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University English Language Centre:
“Academic writing
style: writes to appeal to logical
reasoning; ideas logically organized; longer structured paragraphs; longer
sentences; sentences always grammatically correct; rhetorical questions are
rarely used; abbreviated words are rarely used; informal words and phrases are
rarely used; does not use exaggerated, emotive words; emphasis markings (exclamation
marks) are not used; abstract terms are clearly defined; generalizations
supported by evidence; draws heavily on outside reading and references are
documented.”
That’s the recipe that
gets us “The Post-Apocalyptic Milieu in the Financial Structure of Elizabethan
Theatre,” or “I Tweet, Therefore I Believe:
Social Media and Latino/a Catholicism in the Global Village.” A quick search of Google Earth turned up no
hits for the “Global Village.” Maybe I
should try MapQuest.
Do academics design
these titles so that no one will want to read the paper that follows? The rule seems to be, the more obtuse the
subject matter, the better. Who wants to
write for the four other people on the planet who have a passing interest in
whatever jargonistic title you’re peddling from your ivory tower?
On that note, I must
retitle this piece: “Obtuse on Purpose: An Examination of the Intricacies and
Enthusiasms When The Cranial Structure Enters the Rectal-Sphincter Crevasse.” To the academics out there who eschew
journalism as the Dark Side, pull your head out!
And how do the snobs
at Hong Kong Polytechnic describe journalism?
“Journalistic writing
style: writes to entertain or to arouse
emotions; loosely organized; short paragraphs; shorter sentences; some
sentences may not be grammatically correct; rhetorical questions are usually
used; abbreviated words are usually used; informal words and phrases are
usually used; use exaggerated emotive words; emphasis markings (exclamation
marks) are used; abstract terms are used without definitions; generalizations
are seldom supported by evidence; relies on verbal reporting rather than
written references.”
Oh, the sin and
debauchery of the daily scribe!
Journalists are the anti-Christs of the writing world. They are the sacrilegious heathens roaming
the earth telling stories using short sentences and exclamation points. The horror!
Academics, the
guardians of sanity and equilibrium, are so calm and unemotional, so
intelligent, so, well, boring and irrelevant.
Never let having something vital to say to a worldwide audience get in
the way of tenure! And yes, I’ve been
using exclamation marks, willy-nilly!
I’m hot on this
subject because the 2014 Pulitzer Prizes were announced recently, and after
glancing over the work of the winners and those who were nominated, I am struck
by the quality of the writing and the necessity of the stories to be told. Long before there were ivory towers and
elitist attitudes, there was the story, the narrative, the thing that got us
all gathered around the campfire to listen.
Journalists bring us
the world. (The New York Times—yes; TMZ—not
so much!) Seventy of them lost their
lives bringing us the world in 2013.
This year, 14 have been murdered in the line of duty and we haven’t hit
the halfway point yet.
How many academics
lost their lives bringing us “Gender Issues:
Some Biosociopsychological Discussions?”
Give me the NYTimes reporters David Barstow and
Lowell Bergman writing about death and injury among American workers and the
employers who violated safety regulations (2004 Pulitzer).
Or, David Halberstam’s
seminal reporting from Vietnam (1964 Pulitzer).
Or the weekly columns
of wisdom brought to us by Russell Baker (1979), Rick Bragg (1996), Maureen
Dowd (1999), and Nicholas D. Kristof (2006).
And those writers are just from the NYTimes. There are hundreds more slaving away at
newspapers, magazines, and media outlets across the country who are creating
similar work embodying what Joseph Pulitzer deemed excellent back in 1917 when
the award was first given.
Because in journalism,
excellence is everywhere; it includes vital writing that is alive with
compelling narratives and memorable characters, and the words of journalists
demand to be read. They do their work on
impossible deadlines in dangerous places and at great personal cost.
“Too emotional,” the
academic said? Third person objective
reporting strives to be clear, concise, and not
emotional. The emotion comes from
the reader’s response to a well-told story.
The good stuff presents the facts and leaves it to the reader to decide
what to think.
I was discussing using
journalism in one of my classes with a colleague. He asked what news media I’d be using, and I told
him the school provided a subscription to The
New York Times for each student, as well as a wealth of resources for
teachers. “I’m not going to use that
liberal rag,” he said with more than a hint of bitterness.
Get with the program,
dude. A newspaper is the perfect
confluence of teaching tools: a plethora of stories that will stimulate writing
and debate for each and every class. Why
not use this valuable asset in the classroom?
“I want something less
biased,” he added.
“Like?”
“I’ll use Fox News.”
I thought he was
joking. He was not.
All journalism has
bias as all human beings have bias, and the best journalistic writing inspires
strong emotions in the reader, as I’m sure researching and investigating the
story evoked strong emotions in the journalist.
Bias can come simply from the facts that are included in the story, or
even left out of the story. Hell, bias
can be introduced in the organization
of the facts in the story—what comes first, and what is left to the last
paragraph in the inverted pyramid structure of most journalistic writing. However, even
that can result in a teachable moment for students. Have them try to detect, through critical and
analytical reading, the reporter’s bias.
In the end, though,
journalism is vital to our world, and I find it offensive the way such writing
is denigrated by academics. Hide in the
ivory tower if you must, but in the real world, we need journalism to stay
informed and connected to the stories that matter. We need to read both sides of every issue,
every angle, every narrative fractal we can find. How much academic writing, outside of the
academy truly matters? That’s a
rhetorical question, and I use it proudly.