or A ‘¢ a,

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before due due.

  

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0’
*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If???

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

JOURNALISM EDUCATORS AND MICHIGAN NEWSPAPER PROFESSIONALS:
AN ACADEMIC INTERFACE ON EDUCATIONAL CRITERIA IN JOURNALISM

AND CHARACTERISTICS OF PROFESSIONAL EXPECTATIONS

BY

Kenton John Pfister

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

School of Journalism

1989

ABSTRACT
JOURNALISM EDUCATORS AND MICHIGAN NEWSPAPER PROFESSIONALS:

AN ACADEMIC INTERFACE ON EDUCATIONAL CRITERIA IN JOURNALISM
AND CHARACTERISTICS OF PROFESSIONAL EXPECTATIONS

BY

Kenton John Pfister

This thesis consisted of a study of Michigan
newspaper professionals and journalism educators to
determine their views of one another and education. The
study also disclosed personal and professional
characteristics that correlate with respondents' beliefs
about journalism education and those in the education or
newspaper professional communities. Data was obtained in
a mail questionnaire distributed to journalism educators
and newspaper editors statewide. The study found Michigan
weekly newspaper professionals are more dissatisfied with
journalism education than are daily professionals. It was
also determined that the more experience newspaper people
have in this field, the more likely they are to view
journalism education negatively. It was also found that
the more professionals interact with journalism educators,
the more likely they are to view journalism education

positively.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l

I. BACKGROUND FOR THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Background Assumptions

II. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . 37

III. METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . 50

IV. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Analyzing the Responses
Demographic and Psychographic Findings
Interactions Between Respondents
V. INDICATORS OF THE RELATIONSHIP . . . . . . . 69
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 87

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

LIST OF TABLES

Daily/Weekly Beliefs on J-Education Issues .

News

News

News

News

Professionals' Understanding of J-Schools

Professionals'

Beliefs About J-Students

Professional/J-Educator Interactions .

Professionals'

Beliefs on J-Curriculum

J-Educators' Understanding of Newspapers . .

J-Students' Knowledge of Newspaper Operations

ii

71

72

75

77

79

81

INTRODUCTION

According to published figures, more than 100,000
students are enrolled in journalism and mass
communications programs in the United States, a total that
takes into account students studying newswriting,
broadcasting, magazine writing, and all branches of
today's multi-faceted communications education scene.1
That is about 100,000 more men and women, many of whom
will one day soon be out competing in an already-crowded
and highly demanding job market that has major
expectations of its employees and has little room for non-
performers.

The climate that students will find when they enter
this job market is one where the "practice of journalism
is changing almost daily," writes Fredric A. Powell of the
State University of New York, and where there is "less
time than ever before for students to assimilate this
understanding and practice before it becomes obsolete and

1

 

1Paul V. Paterson, "Survey Indicates No Change in '83
Journalism Enrollment," Journalism Educator, Spring 1984,

p. 3.

2
before it becomes obsolete and replaced by other
technique."2 It is, indeed, an environment that has
little concern for would-be journalists who are not
willing to pay the price to become a part of its ever-
growing ranks.

This same competitive situation certainly faces
graduates of Michigan's university journalism programs,
many of whom seek employment at one of the state's fifty-
two daily newspapers or scores of weekly newspapers. So
what kind of education are these seemingly endless numbers
of journalism students receiving nowadays--particularly in
Michigan? Do Michigan's newspaper professionals today
think highly--or not so highly--of the operations of
journalism programs? And what is is about these
professionals that correlates with their perceptions of
and attitudes toward students educated in university
journalism programs? These are questions that a survey
conducted in May 1985 set out to address. The results of
that survey, as will be discussed, ultimately answered

these questions with a worthy amount of success.

 

2Fredric A. Powell, "Training Students More
Realistically Through a Work-Setting Approach," Journalism
Educator, Spring 1983, p. 52.

I. BACKGROUND FOR THE STUDY

The social significance of a study of this nature is
apparent, as it sheds light on a most practical aspect of
journalism in Michigan. In fact, it focused on what
should actually be the most imperative responsibility for
those charged with the responsibility of educating
newspaper-oriented journalism students: that is,
preparing up-and-coming news-editorial employees for the
jobs that lie ahead of them. Illuminating Michigan
newspaper professionals' outlooks on the educational
training of journalism students provides compelling
findings for the state's newspaper professionals (as peers
see what others in the field are thinking about journalism
education), for the educators (as they see what those who
hire journalism students think of the job educators do),
and, of course, for the students themselves.

From most indications, the linkage between the news
media and journalism schools cannot be called a
particularly tranquil one. It is, as James Carey, the
former president of the Association for Education in

3

4

Journalism and Mass Communication, described, an "uneasy
relationship."3 Literature reviewed on the journalism
professional-educator relationship shows there are major
disagreements among journalists in the field as to the
educational processes transpiring in university journalism
programs. Everette A. Dennis, then dean of the School of
Journalism at the University of Oregon, noted in an
expansive report entitled "Planning for Change in
Journalism Education" that major changes are needed in
our universities' journalism programs. He said neither
research nor the best of current journalism practices is
presently being integrated into the curriculum at most
schools. No one really has much of an idea how to advise
students in the rapidly changing world of communications,
he regretfully added, and besides, journalism educators
are overworked as it is and have little if any opportunity
for positive professional development.4

Dennis's report concluded that, in their present
state, journalism schools in this nation are "nearly
stagnant," not having changed their basic structure or
curriculum in decades. At most, the report indicated,
journalism schools offer "a patchwork of craft or

conceptual courses" based on nothing more than student

 

3James W. Carey, "A Plea for the University Tradition,"

Journalism Quarterly 55 (Winter 1978):849.

4Ron Dorfman, "A New Deal for Journalism Education?" The
Quill, February 1984, p. 18.

5
demand, faculty interest, and institutional attempts to
meet special needs.5 Surveying journalism programs
nationwide, Dennis found in his research that those
programs do not have enough of a broad base of support at
their universities, either. Instead, Dennis claimed the
survey showed journalism schools are frequently subjected
to harsh criticism from professionals in the news media,
many of whom give "marching orders" to educators but
little other constructive, much-welcome backing. This sad
state of affairs, he offered, is particularly disturbing
because journalism and mass communications are fields
"central to the functioning of contemporary society."6
Therefore, the larger ramification of this less-than-
optimal relationship journalism educators and media
professionals is obvious: A public that, for a multitude
of reasons, is probably not benefiting as it should from
the finely honed talents of a wealth of properly trained
journalism graduates.

This criticism of journalism education programs by
working journalists is extremely apparent in research done
on the topic. For example, most telling was a 1980 study
whose findings indicated a prevailing dissent among media

professionals with journalism students. The study, done

 

51bid.

6Beverly T. Watkins, "Many Journalism Schools at
Universities Found to be 'Nearly Stagnant,'" The Chronicle

of Higher Education, 5 July 1984, p. 9.

6

by Brigham Young University educators Gordon Mills,
Kenneth Harvey, and Leland B. Warnick, consisted of a
survey of 147 daily newspaper editors and eighty weekly
editors. The trio found the majority of the editors
surveyed were not overly impressed with the typical four-
year journalism education program. Furthermore, those
malcontent feelings about journalism graduates were
directly reflected in the editors' views of schools from
which these graduates hailed. Extremely indicative of
these editors' negative feelings were the responses to a
question put to them about their preferences among four
kinds of preparation for workers in entry-level newspaper
editorial jobs. Among the four modes of training
offered, the program students follow in accredited
journalism schools was rated last by the responding
editors. More editors even said they would be more
willing to hire a graduate of an intensive two-year trade
school than a graduate of a university journalism
program.7

A warranted follow-up question to this unsettling
finding could be this: Why are there such negative
. feelings among newspaper people about the quality of
education received by students in university journalism

programs? One especially acute problem many editors

 

7Gordon Mills, Kenneth Harvey, and Leland B. Warnick,
"Newspaper Editors Point to J-Grad Deficiencies,"
Journalism Educator, July 1980, pp. 12—14.

7
expressed in the Brigham Young researchers' survey--which
may go a long ways toward answering this question--was
with students' basic grammar, spelling, and writing
skills. Thirty-five percent of those editors responding
to the questionnaire mentioned these problems.8
Representative of these editors' beliefs was one
respondent, who gave this frank answer to an open-ended
question asking for specific problems with journalism
students' skills: "We have almost given up on finding
anyone skilled in basic grammar, spelling, and writing
skills. We have had more luck with non-journalism
graduates."9

Similar unsatisfactory appraisals of journalism
education were echoed in another responses garnered during
another survey, this one conducted by Edwin O. Haroldsen
and Kenneth E. Harvey. In that survey, the data collected
showed most of these editors believes journalism students
did not have nearly the proper amount of preparation for
the workplace. The Haroldsen-Harvey study revealed that
57 percent of the national magazine editors responding to
their questionnaire agreed journalism graduates are poorly
prepared or not prepared at all to handle magazine
editorial positions, an opinion that was for the most part

shared by editors of both large and small publications

 

81bid., p. 15.

91bid.

8

alike.10 In this survey as well, editors expressed great
concern over journalism students' basic language and
grammar training. Most of these editors, the authors'
Journalism Educator report on the survey noted, would
probably favor a specific journalism school course
offering that focused specifically on basic language
skills.11

Random samplings of magazine editors' comments in the
survey detailed what they felt are problems with the
manner in which journalism schools are churning out
graduates and with the skills that those graduates
possess. One editor flatly said that schools of
journalism have evolved into "factories to turn out the
unfit instead of incubators for the relatively few of
talent. . . . I see a good many journalism graduates; the
foundering ones without talent are pathetic examples of
the mass production now taking place in every school of
journalism that I know anything about."12 Comments such
as this make it all too obvious that news professionals
are not content with today's journalism school-educated

students. And yet, the fact that journalists in the field

 

10Edwin O. Haroldsen and Kenneth E. Harvey, "Frowns Greet
New J-Grads in Magazine Job Market," Journalism Educator,
July 1979, p. 3.

11Ibid., p. 26.

12Ibid., p. 3.

9
believe journalism students are not as prepared as they
should be is not the only gap concerning journalism
education that requires attention. There is also a
noticeable discrepancy between journalists and educators
as to their feelings about journalism students'
preparedness, a review of the literature indicated. Thus,
not only do those in the field that journalism students
lack appropriate training, but there is apparently another
formidable obstacle hindering the relationship between
journalism educators and journalists: They disagree as to
the quality of the education being administered.

One survey, undertaken as part of a doctoral
dissertation by Haskell O. Gaddis, disclosed that
journalism educators had a higher perception of the skills
of journalism graduates than did newspaper editors. This
comparative study, the researcher claimed, also found that
editors saw much more of a need for improvement in
journalism education than did those persons who
who were responsible for that education.13

Disagreement between journalists and educators over
the preparedness of journalism students was also brought
forth in conflicting articles appearing in a special

September 1975 issue on journalism education in The Quill.

 

13Haskell O. Gaddis, "Journalism Career Preparation:
Opinions of Selected Newspaper Editors Versus Those of
Heads of ACEJ-Accredited News-Editorial Journalism
Sequences," Journalism Abstracts, 1980, 18:11.

10

The combatants, John DeMott of Memphis State University
and editor and publisher Ronald H. Einstoss, had far
differing views on the job journalism educators are doing
in preparing students for this relentless world of
employment in today's media. Defending the work being
done by journalism educators, DeMott wrote that "in little
more than a single generation, professional journalism
education has progressed from the uncertain status of a
successful experiment" to a situation where "we are
witnessing the establishment of journalism programs
everywhere." DeMott condemned what he called "primitive
newspaper editors who don't believe at all in journalism
schools, and editors with no experience teaching who have
a lot of beautiful theories about journalism education
that don't work out in practice."14

DeMott also defended journalism education against the
common criticisms it receives from those who say its
practitioners are too busy with their research endeavors
to keep current with what is happening in the so-called
"real world." To these claims, he responded without
hesitation:

Nonsense. Despite the presence of too many
academicians of limited professional experience,
today's average journalism professor has more
professional experience than the average critic, and
is more familiar with the developments in the field.

I'm constantly amazed at the naivete displayed by
many news reporters and editors brought into our

 

14John DeMott, "We're Doing a Better Job Than Ever," The
Quill, September 1975, p. 16.

11

classroom. They are still slow to see that the ivy-
colored ivory-tower myth is just that.15

DeMott's arguments did not sway the viewpoint of
Einstoss, who retorted that by and large, journalism
students still lack the necessary "newspaper
intelligence," as he put it, to step into hectic news-
editorial positions. Newspaper intelligence, Einstoss
elaborated, consists of curiosity; language skills:
integrity; passion to communicate: understanding of the
newsroom, community, nation, and world: ability to find
things out and ask questions; street sense; motivation;
and acquisition of certain indispensible newspaper skills.
Said Einstoss, passionately: "The young man or woman who
possesses all of those competencies would be a welcome
addition to any newsroom, large or small. But it would
seem that not many j-school graduates possess them."
Einstoss said editors know what they expect of a beginning
reporter, but are not encountering the realization of that
expectation in the journalism students they come across.

"And they expect as much from the novice as any other
(reporter) because they don't label stories as written by
beginning, intermediate, or advanced reporters," he added.
"Readers pay for a professionally done product and expect

one."16

 

15Ibid., p. 17.

16Ibid., p. 21.

12

Disagreement with and concern over the operations of
journalism programs at the nation's colleges and
universities was also expressed by educators and news
professionals at a joint conference in 1973 sponsored by
the American Newspaper Publishers Association (ANPA) and
the Association for Education in Journalism. A major
theme expressed time and again at that session, according
to an Editor & Publisher recapitulation, was that together
journalism educators and news professionals can achieve
far more than either group can by working separately.
This togetherness, admitted those attending the
conference, was not occurring at that time.17 Reviewing
more recent writings on the subject, this quested-for
cohesiveness simply is not taking place today.

While the literature indicates educators are more
positive about their lot than news professionals, this
does not mean their is universal contentment with the
state of affairs. One educator, Dave Berkman, chair of
and a professor in the Department of Communication at the
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, contended in a 1985
article that journalism education is not attaining the
level of education mandated by its purported mission of
training students to commence careers in the media." The

reason for this gloomy prognostication, he said, is plain

 

17Hillier Krieghbaum, "J-School Training Criticized in
ANPA-AEJ 'Rap' Sessions," Editor & Publ'sher, 10 November
1973.

13
and simply a lack of quality students.18 Noting that
until 1983, median SAT verbal test scores for journalism
students had declined for eighteen straight years, Berkman
said this implies that journalism programs students "who
can have no legitimate expectation of pursuing a career
that centers on the craft of writing." But Berkman said
none of this surprises him, adding:
Those to whom I speak, almost without exception,
express incredulity about the poor writing skills of
those whom we graduate as journalism or broadcast
majors--and those whom we have ostensibly
"credentialed" as qualified for entry-level
positions. Yet, despite of this kind of feedback--
and given its consistency, it cannot be exceptional--
we go on enrolling students, large numbers of whom
have no right to expect to earn their living by
writing.19
Berkman also said journalism educators "can go on
ignoring the problem," but doing so would constitute
living a "professional lie." This is strong language
shows there are passionate feelings out there about how
and why it is significant that a hard look be taken at the
job that journalism education is doing.

Since it may be accurate to say that there is a gap
between what many educators and professionals think of
journalism education, the next step is to identify some

possible factors contributing to existence of this gap.

This step is essential if journalism education is to

 

18Dave Berkman, "Student Quality Fall Affects J-Schools,"
Journalism Educator, Winter 1985, pp. 33-34.

19Ibid., pp. 34-35.

l4

improve, concluded researcher Woody Gaddis. After his
1979 survey of journalism educators and newspaper editors,
Gaddis resolved that these two groups must cast aside
their differences of opinion about the successes and
failures of journalism and jointly advocate the
development of widespread public support for quality
journalism.20

One primary reason for this discrepancy something
which has surfaced frequently in a thorough review of
related literature, may be that the groups lack formidable
ties and familiarity with each other. Evidence of the
lack of familiarity of news professionals with journalism
education (and vice versa) surfaced strongly in a survey
survey of 191 editors and 164 educators undertaken by
ANPA. In that study, reviewed in the April 1972 issue of
The Quill, the difference in the two groups' views of
journalism education was extreme. Author John L. Hulteng
reported that, when asked what degree of understanding
journalism graduates have of objectivity in reporting,
nearly 90 percent of the responding educators said "a
great deal" or "quite a lot," while only half of the

editors agreed with those estimates.21

 

20Woody Gaddis, "Editors, Educators Agree on Many Key J-
Education Issues," Journalism Educator, July 1981, pp. 26,
46.

21John L. Hulteng, "The J-Graduate--How Well Prepared?
Educators and Editors Don't See Eye to Eye," The Quill,
April 1972, p. 15.

15

The differences go on and on. To a question about
journalism graduates' understanding of editorializing in
news copy, nearly 80 percent of the professors said their
graduates understood this problem well, while fewer than a
third of the editors had the same opinion of those
journalism graduates who came to them for jobs. Although
more than 70 percent of the educators said journalism
graduates were well prepared to handle a copy-editing or
headline-writing assignment, only slightly more than 10
percent of the editors agreed. And when asked how well
journalism students were prepared to write usable news
copy, nearly 90 percent of the educators responded "well
prepared" or "very well prepared," but less than 50
percent of the editors checked either of those answers.
According to Hulteng, the findings made it clear how wide
the difference is between the journalism educational and
professional arenas when it comes to gaging journalism
education's effectiveness. "In every instance, the
educators were far more optimistic about the abilities of
their charges than were the editors," said the former
dean of the University of Oregon Journalism School.22

Interestingly, the survey also showed some major
variations in the perceptions held by the two groups about
the manner in which newspapers are operated. "Generally,

the editors' impressions of the functions carried out by

 

221b1d.

16

their papers tended to be significantly more idealistic
than the educators' appraisals of newspaper performance,"
Hulteng commented. But when it came to journalism
education, he said, editors "displayed in their responses
a lack of accurate knowledge of the nature and course of
programs at most journalism schools." In the same piece,
United Press International's Roger Tartarian said:

It shows that despite all ecumenical efforts,
the short circuit between editors and journalism
educators persists to a considerable degree. Many
editors apparently cling steadfastly to false notions
about journalism education. . . . As for the
educators, they not surprisingly have a higher
opinion of the professional capabilities of their
graduates than do most of the men who hire them.23
The final verdict on the study's findings, Hulteng

stressed, was although dialogue between editors and
educators may have been expanding to some degree,
"apparently it still has a long way to go."24 To make up
some of this "long way" Hulteng described, DeWitt C.
Reddick, in the introduction to The Quill's earlier
mentioned exploratory series on journalism education,
urged that links must be developed between educators and
professionals. "Journalism education is of vital concern
to all professional fields of journalism," he wrote.

"Ways must be found for a continuous interaction between

journalism teachers and professionals on newspapers,

 

23Ibid.

24Ibid.

17
magazines, the electronic media, in advertising, public
relations, and other communication fields." Reddick, once
dean of the University of Texas College of Communication,
said the constant complaints about journalism education
from news professionals concerns him deeply. He noted:

It concerns me when I hear a newspaper editor
complain: "Those people on the journalism faculty
haven't been down to see me in months." I'd like to
say to him: "The distance from the university to the
newspaper office is the same as the distance from the
newspaper to the school: have you been out to see the
faculty on campus?" But I'd also say to the faculty:
"You are neglecting your most valuable resources."
The imperative rests alike on both sides to maintain
communication. For the good of all.25
Ronald Einstoss said both educators and news

professionals are to blame for the split that has
occurred. He admitted the media need help from educators
in the fight to be "bold, imaginative, and innovative in
our approach to the packaging of the news." At the same
time, though, he said some of the burden must be put on
news executives. Unless they take enough interest in
journalism schools to exert effort and "breed and carry
that fight" to the university administrators (those who
can do much to improve journalism programs), journalism

professionals will get graduates among their ranks who are

far lower in quality than they could or should be.26

 

25DeWitt C. Reddick, "From a Variety of Voices, A Myriad
of Grays: Introduction," The Quill, September 1975, p.
15.

26Einstoss, "You're Still Short of the Mark," p. 24.

18

Again, neither journalism educators nor journalism
professionals are on the "right" side of this difference,
Einstoss points out. "We've all been trying to get by
with a head-in-the-sand defense, consisting mainly of
blaming the other guy, long enough," he wrote. "If we
start putting a few points on the scoreboard, our students
and readers will be the winners."27

In addition to this observed lack of familiarity
between journalism editors and news professionals and the
institutions represented by both groups, also widening
this gap may be a shift in journalism students' career
interests. When considering newspapers, the shift in
student interests may be another probable cause of the gap
between journalism education and newspaper editors and
publishers. Why? Because student interest in newspaper
careers has been dwindling greatly. So much so that the
number of journalism students pursuing newspaper careers
does not make up anywhere near a majority of the overall
number of students seeking journalism or communications
degrees. And this can hardly be called a recent
phenomenon in education circles.

Even well over a decade ago, evidence was surfacing
that showed newspaper work was no longer the primary
career interest it once was for journalism school-trained

students. In an October 1972 survey of University of

 

27Ibid.

19

North Carolina students, researcher Thomas A. Bowers found
that only 30 percent of those students anticipated working
for newspapers five years after graduation. Furthermore,
30 percent of the respondents also anticipated being in
non-journalism careers altogether five years following
graduation. This, Bowers interpreted, "suggests many
journalism students might not be committed to a journalism
career." Given these findings--which had to be disturbing
to both journalism schools and newspaper people--Bowers
proposed the possibility of separate curricula being
created for students who are interested in a communication
field but not specifically a traditional journalism
career.28

This move away from one-time traditional newspaper
careers seems to have gathered a great deal of momentum in
the years that followed Bowers' study. A national survey
done in 1980 by the Frank E. Gannett Newspaper Foundation
showed that journalism students' career interests were
appreciably wide in scope--so wide that only 13.3 percent
of the students responding said they intended to seek
employment with newspapers. Only 10.9 percent of those
students said they intended to work with daily newspapers,
the remaining 3.4 percent preferring community-type

publications. This percentage of students wanting to work

 

28Thomas A. Bowers, "Student Attitudes Toward Journalism

as a Major and a Career," Jaurualisu Quarterly 51 (Summer
1974), 266, 269-70.

20

on newspapers was smaller than the percentages wanting to
work in either public relations, advertising, or
television-radio careers.29 With newspaper careers no
longer a dominant career goal of journalism students, the
greater likelihood would appear to be that newspapers are
seeing fewer journalism-educated students apply for their
news-editorial openings. Thus, can it be surprising
newspaper people do not view journalism education kindly?

Also inhibiting future newspaper employees'
development, many believe, are constraints slapped on
accredited journalism programs by the Accrediting Council
on Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
(ACEJMC), the organization responsible for evaluating and
re-evaluating journalism criteria of universities and
colleges that participate voluntarily in its program.
ACEJMC requires that at least 51 percent of the
undergraduate students in accredited schools maintain a
"general ratio" of three-fourths courses in liberal arts
to one-fourth journalism courses.30 Because of this
standard, many say journalism students are not permitted
to take all of the journalism courses they want and,

indeed, need to better prepare themselves for the

 

29William J. Roepke, "Educators Ponder Shifts in Student
Career Goals," Journalism Educator, October 1981, pp. 3,
6.

30Michael Mokrzycki, "Provisional Accreditation Rejected
by Boston University," Editor & Publisher, 12 February
1983, p. 14.

21
newspaper world. Newspaper professionals, it would seem
likely, are among the harshest critics of this
requirement.

The national survey of newspaper editors by Brigham
Young's Mills, Harvey, and Warnick gave support to this
possibility. A general finding in their study was that
the editors' mean response indicated a student's
journalism course load should be increased from the
present 25 percent allowed by ACEJMC standards to about 40
percent.31 Perhaps representative of those editors who
would applaud an increase in allowable journalism courses,
a managing editor from a smaller Michigan daily newspaper
said: "I feel journalism students better learn the ABCs
of the profession and to hell with all the theory and
advocacy bull they seem to be filled with." Emphasizing
that journalism is a profession, akin to other fields
requiring special talents, he accused journalism schools
of passing on students who should "be detoured in
college" and then forcing newspaper editors "to cull them
(students) out after accepting their diploma as prima
facie evidence of competency."32

In education circles, however, there are people on

both sides of the fence of the liberal arts-journalism

 

31Mills, Harvey, and Warnick, "Newspaper Editors Point,"
p. 12.

32Ibid., pp. 15-16.

22

question, thus adding more uncertainty to the picture.
Supporters of the present ACEJMC standard say the three-
to-one ratio of liberal arts and journalism courses gives
students a taste of a multitude of subjects that might
have remained unknown to them if they were in a more
journalism-dominated curriculum. James Carey, now dean of
the College of Communications at the University of
Illinois, said the standard is a necessity. "When a
certain skill is divorced from any of the larger purposes
that are presumably what we are trying to cultivate in
this civilization, there is a real danger," he
professed.33

Sharon Murphy, dean of journalism at Marquette
University in Milwaukee and advocate of a strong liberal
arts education, said such a background produces people who
can "stretch the ideas" of the journalistic profession.
"By graduating those who are only ready for their first
job, we're cheating ourselves," she matter-of-factly
claimed.34

But not all educators are of this opinion. Kenneth
Edwards, addressing this topic in a 1983 issue of Editor &
Burlisher, writes that the three-to-one accreditation rule

greatly inhibits journalism schools. "Journalism

 

33Tim Talevich, "Liberal Arts Tradition Backed at J-
Education Summit," Presstime, February 1984, p. 38.

34Ibid., p. 39.

23
education is not handicapped by too much journalism
instruction," said the former University of Alabama
journalism professor. "There are hundreds of students in
accredited journalism programs who would like to enroll in
courses teaching reporting, writing, and practical
research but who cannot do so because of the 75-25 rule."
Students whose course load is limited by accreditation
standards, Edwards contended, are not acquiring enough of
the skills that are so strongly sought after by those
hiring entry-level journalists.35 There is also strong
evidence that journalism schools do not fully understand
what accreditation actually means for their students. In
a survey of twenty-four ACEJMC accreditors and sixty-seven
administrators done in the spring of 1983, Gerald C. Stone
of Memphis State University reported this finding: An
"air of uncertainty" existed among journalism school
administrators as to what ACEJMC's three-to-one rule
means. Answers obtained in the survey, according to
Stone, indicated that journalism schools and accreditors
seem to operate on two unattached plateaus. He
announced:

Among administrators of ACEJMC-accredited
programs, and among members of the accrediting group
itself, there is a dose of different interpretation
and at least a modicum of misunderstanding about how
the rule should be applied to specific courses. . . .

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding
between journalism administrators and ACEJMC members.

 

35Kenneth Edwards, "Teaching Writing Skills," Editor &
Publisuar, 2 April 1983, p. 36.

24

. . . The study supports the uncomfortable conclusion

that there is a substantial difference in the

interpretation of the 25 percent rule today. The
results suggest that some tightening of the
guidelines, or at least a greater clarity of the
guidelines, be cons1dered.

William R. Lindley of the Idaho State University
Department of Journalism agreed that accreditation has
plunged journalism schools into a state of confusion.
Lindley said in a Nieman Reuorts article that journalism
education, with negligible guidance from accreditors, has
become a concoction of faculty members with varying
experiences, so-called "journalism schools" joined with
other programs, and a lack of standards as to what
students should be taught. A former Associated Press and
newspaper employee, Lindley said because of a lack of
accreditation directives, journalism education is likely
to continue to be a system plagued by policies based on
each school's "entrenched policies and tenured interests,"
not on what is in the best interest of the thousands of
students.37

Joining Lindley in questioning accreditation policy
is Charles T. Duncan, professor and dean emeritus at the

University of Oregon. He has wondered quite candidly just

what purpose accreditation serves for both journalism

 

36Gerald C. Stone, "Survey Reflects Disagreement on 25
Percent Accrediting Rule," Journalism Educator, Winter
1984, p. 16.

37William R. Lindley, "Journalism Studies: Search for a
Science," Nieman Reports, Winter 1983, p. 42.

25
education and the professional world. "The policy of
accreditation . . . has serious flaws, I believe," Duncan
wrote. "It can be (and I have known it to be) misleading
to prospective students and employees alike, few of whom
are sophisticated enough or care enough to discern its
meaning and to judge accordingly." Thinking over how
accreditation can effectively fit into the expanding
interests that journalism students have, Duncan said:

The stated purpose of accreditation is "to
promote excellence in journalism." . . . Journalism,
however defined, is a profession only for those who
make it so for themselves. Where then does
accreditation fit into the melange that in the
journalism-mass communication world of today--a world
that has changed so dramatically in the past thirty
years and will change even more in the next thirty?
Accreditation of what and for whom?38
Duncan raises a sensitive question about the role of

accreditation, one that many newspaper professionals who
hire journalism students perhaps have also pondered. Yet
another problem with journalism education that newspaper
professionals and educators have cited is students' lack
of proper experience prior to entering the media
marketplace for their first job. In the previously noted
Brigham Young educators' survey of newspaper editors,
respondents gave a high rating (3.92 mean out of 5.0) to a

proposal that all journalism students should be required

to fill a newspaper internship before graduation.

 

38Charles W. Duncan, "Accreditation Issues Debated at
1983 AEJMC Convention: The Historical Perspective,"

Journalism Educator, Winter 1984, p. 8.

26

Representative of many respondents' feelings was this
comment from an editor: "'Experience is the best teacher'
continues to be the best advice, but so few graduates have
much outside their school publications. They need to see
the practical side along with the academics." Added
another editor: "I firmly believe that an internship is
the best training."39

Journalism educators Jon Roosenraad and Donna Wares
provided further solid evidence of the importance
newspaper professionals attach to the role of professional
experience in a student's background. The University of
Florida educators, based on their survey of seventy-four
editors, reported a majority of those editors put more
emphasis on the experience a journalism graduate (or
graduate of any major) has over that job candidate's
educational background. "It simply isn't enough for
would-be journalists to learn about the profession:
they've got to get hands-on experience while they are
still in college," the researchers wrote in reflecting on
the conclusions drawn from their survey.4O

Another educator, Richard Femmel, described in an

October 1978 Journalism Educator article the success that

 

39Mills, Harvey, and Warnick, "Newspaper Editors Point,"
pp. 17-18.

40Jon Roosenraad and Donna Wares, "Academics vs.

Experience," Qournalism Egucator, Summer 1983, pp. 18,
30.

27
Wayne State University had achieved with its mandatory
internship program. During the course of the program,
students' internships were designed to fit the needs of
the newspaper and other media sponsors that the students
were to serve. The results of the program were
exceptional: not only were the sponsors impressed by the
students who served them, said Femmel, but many of the
interns were offered permanent positions with their
sponsoring publications upon graduation.41 Certainly,
what this program at Wayne State shows is that students
who couple relative media experience with their college
education are viewed by many hiring media professionals
as more attractive candidates than some of those students
whose background is strictly education-intensive and does
not contain prior experience.

Based on the discussion presented thus far, as well
as the reasons mentioned as contributing to the gap
between journalism educators and news professionals, it is
still largely up to journalism educators to face the
challenges before them and make their educational programs
better reflect the needs of those in the media who do the
hiring. Toward this end, journalism author John Tebbel
wrote that professional journalism instruction must be

more relevant to the contemporary world it intends to

 

41Richard Femmel, "Why Not Make Internships Mandatory for
Everybody?" Journalism Educator, October 1978, pp. 17-19.

28

serve, and it is the responsibility of journalism schools
to responsibly address this situation.42

Journalism education "is suffering from that
fashionable affliction, an identity crisis," noted Tebbel.
"Those who want to isolate it from the real world of the
media as an academic discipline unrelated to the
professional performance will have little but sympathy to
offer newspapers and broadcasters who are under attack
from critics of every variety, and who hope to fight back
by improving their product." Tebbel admitted the media
are not without fault in this dilemma over how to prepare
journalism students, but nevertheless added that
journalism schools must mount the fight to make
undergraduate journalism education a process which
directly fulfills the professional quality expected of the
working press. Doing anything less will be shortchanging
the press as well as journalism education, he added.43

Another educator, Melvin Mencher of Columbia
University, posed this challenge to journalism schools in
an Autumn 1982 Nieman Reports piece: "Can journalism
schools monitor themselves and keep a creative tension

between the established curriculum and the demands of the

 

42John Tebbel, "Can Journalism Schools Improve the

Press?" In Readipgs in Mass Communication: Concepts and
lasuaa iu rug Eass Eagia (Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown
Company Publishers, 1972), p. 373.

43Ibid.

29
new technology?"44 It is this type of question with
which many journalism schools apparently are grappling.
It is also one the professional journalism community is
increasingly forcing upon educators. Are satisfactory
answers being found, however?

One educator, Ted Joseph of Washington State
University, believes not. This "creative tension" Mencher
talks of is not at all typical of the makeup of most
journalism schools, Joseph charged in a Spring 1983
Journalism Educator article. Processes are needed in
journalism education, he wrote, "to eliminate some of the
pathetically sterile and destructive interactions which
permeate many of our departments of (journalism) . . .
institutions."45

Making students better fit for today's competitive
media, observed DeWitt C. Reddick, means journalism
education must take into account the changes that have
taken place in many aspects of the information industries,
while at the same time continuing to stress the precious
and indispensible fundamentals that the media require.

The way to achieve this, he said, is to work with--and not
in spite of--professional journalists. "The task can only

be carried out satisfactorily with close cooperation

 

44Melvin Mencher, "Agenda for Journalism Education,"

1112mm: 3m. Autumn 1982. p- 47-

45Ted Joseph, "The Need For Dialogue: We Might Try
Harder," Journalism Educator, Spring 1983, p. 55.

30

between the professional fields of journalism and the
educational effort," Reddick maintained. "Journalism
education, by all logic, should be ahead of professional
journalism in projecting changing approaches to the
interpretation of news, for education is to prepare for
tomorrow."45 James Carey, meanwhile, implores all
journalism educators to "reassert the university
tradition" in their teachings and to be aware they
are doing more than preparing students for the working
world. He went on to say: "We must recognize that we are
not merely training people for a profession or for the
current demands of professional practice, but for
membership in the public and for a future that transcends
both the limitations of contemporary practice and
contemporary politics."47

Determining whether Michigan newspaper professionals
agree with such society-focused assessments of the
function of journalism programs was one intention of the
study that was carried out in this master's thesis. But
if the previously cited literature is any indication, it
is necessary to recognize many of today's news
professionals are probably more concerned that their

entry-level employees can write and report than if they

 

46Reddick, "From a Variety of Voices," p. 14.

47Carey, "A Plea for the University Tradition," pp. 854-
55.

31
are well prepared for membership in society. It is upon
this foundation of discrepancies between journalists'
expectations and educators' goals that the study

undertaken for this master's thesis was formulated.

Background Assumptions

Based on the preceding review of the literature, a
number of background assumptions were made about the
state of the relationships between university-level
journalism educators and newspaper professionals. Those
assumptions were:

1. It was assumed there exists a gap between
Michigan journalism schools' criteria for education in
journalism and newspaper professionals' arpecpations from
students who graduate from journalism schools.

2. Furthermore, it was assumed there are noteworthy
differences between newspaper professionals and journalism
educators as to the preparedness of journalism graduates
for entry-level newspaper positions, with educators
believing students are better prepared for those jobs than
do newspaper professionals.

3. In addition, it was assumed newspaper
professionals would have a more positive perception of the
education that journalism students receive if they

themselves had some input into journalism programs and if

32
they understand the educational processes that occur
regularly in a university-level journalism program.

4. Also, it was assumed newspaper professionals
believe a majority of students in journalism programs lack
a broad base of training which includes necessary
language, reporting, writing, editing, and other skills
needed to step in and contribute immediately at an entry-
level news-editorial position with a newspaper.

5. Finally, it was assumed newspaper professionals
view previous professional media experience as
constituting a significant portion of educational criteria
for entry-level positions with newspapers.

Based on these assumptions, it was possible to
develop extensive rationale for performing the study.
First, there is an obvious dearth of recent systematic and
empirical data in the field in which news professionals'
perceptions of and attitudes toward the state of
journalism education are measured. This readily apparent
research gap is particularly evident in regards to
Michigan's news media and journalism educators--with which
the scope of this study concerned itself.

Studies have been conducted nationally and in a few
other select states where editors of newspapers have been
questioned for their ideas on how future news-editorial
employees should be schooled and on how well this task is

being accomplished. However, the same type of study had

33
not yet been conducted in Michigan. Given this void, a
study of the state's newspaper professionals and
journalism educators should be a welcome addition to the
journalism scene in the state. This study could
eventually lead to the formation of well-founded factors
as to what the relationship actually is between journalism
programs in the state and professionals with daily and
weekly newspapers. Of course, it could also lead to the
creation of a stronger, more mutually beneficial
relationship between educators and news professionals that
benefits both groups.

In addition, studies conducted to date in regards to
newspaper editors' beliefs about journalism education and
journalism graduates have not addressed in any magnitude
what professional expectations the editors possess that
may shape or correlate with their views of the journalism
education process. Coinciding with this specific
rationale, this study helped to bridge this so-called
knowledge gap between journalism educators and what
newspaper professionals statewide are thinking and feeling
about the education that is being extended to journalism
students in the state's universities. The reactions noted
previously in the review of literature would lead an
onlooker to believe that among a great many newspaper
professionals, there is a definite lack of knowledge and

understanding of the inside operations and goals of

34
journalism programs across the United States. This being
the case, the information obtained in this Michigan-
oriented study gives journalism educators and
administrators a base upon which to attempt to construct
stronger relations with journalism professionals across
the state.

Besides bridging this formidable knowledge gap, the
study also served as a means for developing suggestions
for improving the standards of journalism education both
in this state and across the nation. In the manner in
which the study was formulated, it provided an effective
tool for delineating where Michigan newspaper
professionals stand today. It can help educators
determine where journalism education in the state is
deficient, where they believe it excels, how they
think journalism schools can better serve the newspaper
industry, and how they think the newspaper industry can
also better serve journalism education.

The study also sought out the particular skills these
newspaper professionals value most in the incoming news-
editorial employees they hire. Also, it pointed out what
skills to which those professionals do not attach great
value. Specifically, it focused on the importance that
newspaper professionals place on prior practical
experience in their consideration of newly hired news

employees.

35

While accomplishing all of these objectives, the
study also looked into the background and personal
characteristics of these newspaper professionals that
perhaps coincide in some way with their beliefs about
journalism education. Correlations found between these
professionals and what they desire from journalism
education programs at the university level will likely
provide the educators with ideas on how they might improve
the structure of their educational criteria or personal
relationships with news professionals in order to better
serve the state's newspaper industry. In the long run,
these correlations may also help to build more creative
and ultimately constructive cooperation between the
educational and professional people in Michigan's
journalism arena. And in turn, it might then be possible
for both educators and newspaper professionals to use the
study findings to enact ways of fostering more activities
that allow for interactions between the groups. Without
increasing the opportunities for these activities to
exist, it is difficult to forecast any improvements in the
journalism educator-news professional standing
relationship.

It is also hoped the findings gained in the study
will provide a theoretical basis which may be useful in
predicting the nature of the relationship between

educational criteria in journalism and Michigan newspaper

36
professionals' expectations from journalism graduates.
This could ultimately make possible the development of an

actual theory that could be applied across the entire

spectrum of these groups' relations.

II. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Based on the findings highlighted in the literature
regarding the journalism educator-journalism professional
relationship, it would appear there is a most distinct
possibility of building and testing some sound theoretical
principles stemming from this relationship. Any
theoretical proposition would have to be formulated in
consideration of the perceptions and attitudes of both
journalism educators and those people who work in the
media.

The study of perception involves attempting to
understand those aspects of observations of journalism
educators and journalism professionals that depend on the
nature of those groups as observers. Those perceptions,
of course, are based on whatever type of interactions
journalism professionals have had with journalism
educators and vice-versa. Given the previously cited
evidence in the literature review, it would be a fair
assumption to say that when it comes to the relationship
between journalism educators and professionals, neither

37

38
group has developed what could be called a positive
perception of the effectiveness of the other's mode of
operations. It is also quite possible that criteria of
their relationship and each group's expectations may be
valid, but these constituencies' mutual perceptions may
nonetheless be faulty.

As has also been noted, news professionals have
expressed strong disagreement with the processes
transpiring in journalism schools and with the ultimate
products of those schools--the journalism graduates who
enter the media job market. These strong sentiments stem
largely from the perceptions that news professionals have
formed of journalism education as a whole. One
observation made repeatedly by news people, as evidenced
in the review of literature, is that graduates of four-
year university journalism programs are generally not
well-equipped to handle entry-level news-editorial
positions. That is, from the interactions these
professionals have had with journalism educators--much of
it, perhaps, through the journalism students these
professionals have encountered--they then form overall
perceptions of journalism education. In the end, in a
possibly more damaging development, these news
professionals form even stronger perceptions of the
institutions from which the journalism students have

graduated.

39

In the meantime, educators seemingly perceive
journalism professionals as lacking concrete concern for
what they (the educators) are trying to accomplish, the
literature has revealed. The educators' perception of the
news media which became overtly apparent, with respect to
journalism education, is that educators many times
perceive their counterparts in newspapers, television, and
radio as wanting to benefit from the fruits of journalism
educators' labor without making any appreciable
contribution to that educational process. Thus, these
perceptions may create almost a defensive reaction among
educators, many of whom feel they get little but criticism
from journalism professionals and consequently lash back
at the source of that criticism. The split these groups'
negative views of each other has created is obviously
harmful to the welfare of journalism education, and in the
long run, to the quality of journalism. As will be seen,
the theoretical evidence indicates that if a mutually
satisfying state of harmony existed between journalism
educators and news professionals, the interface could be
more beneficial to both groups and journalism schools'
curriculum would improve stand a better chance of marked
improvements.

These perceptions, however well-founded, are
particularly significant because they eventually become

operationalized as attitudes. News professionals' and

40

journalism educators' attitudes toward each other and
toward the discipline of journalism education are built
upon continuously changing beliefs which constitute
cognitive and affective properties that interact and
reinforce one another. As for the perceptions of news
professionals and journalism educators, one is initially
led to theorize these constituencies do not have positive
mindsets toward each other because they are not
interacting in ways that they believe produce positive
results. Moreover, the belief might be that the result of
these groups' interaction is a reinforcement of the
negative perceptions they already harbor.

Professional journalists want graduates who are able
to handle on-the-job editorial responsibilities with a
minimum of difficulty. Educators, on the other hand, want
more constructive and useful input from the men and women
in the media who do the hiring. Since the evidence
appears to indicate neither journalists nor educators are
attaining these objectives in a manner they find suitable
to their own interests, there is a distinct (in fact,
likely) possibility their attitudes toward each other are
in need of tremendous improvement--a task that would seem
not easily achieved when one considers the ongoing
difficulties that have plagued this relationship. In
summarizing the journalism educators' and news

professionals' attitudes toward each other, then, it would

41
appear accurate to agree educators think news
professionals do not take an active role in the journalism
educational process. It would also seem accurate to
assume news professionals think journalism educators --for
a variety of previously cited reasons--are part of the
entire core of problems that continue to beset students
who obtain their learning and training through the
nation's university journalism programs.

This brings the discussion of attitudes to these
constituencies' attitudes toward journalism education
itself. Here too the evidence makes it certain these
groups differ strongly. Journalism educators by and large
have emphasized they believe professionals in their field
do a mostly satisfactory job of preparing students for
media careers. News professionals, on the other hand,
have oftentimes stressed journalism education does not
provide what they consider is necessary preparation for
news-editorial careers. These groups' attitudes toward
the methods and results of journalism education indeed
appear to represent a formidable obstacle.

Some of the factors responsible for the news
professionals' unfavorable attitudes toward journalism
education may include a lack of journalism coursework in
schools' required curriculum, a lack of media experience
among graduating students, a lack of training in basic

skills for most students, a curriculum not always well-

42
planned, and others. But somewhere on down the line,
because of the unfavorable attitudes many news
professionals have developed about journalism education,
the result may be that fewer and fewer journalism-educated
students would be sought after by news professionals for
employment on their news-editorial staffs. As a byproduct
of this action, those people trained in other manners--
such as trade schools, non-journalism university
education, solely on-the-job experience, whatever--might
then be considered more strongly by newspaper
professionals.

While the news professionals are continuously forming
and modifying attitudes toward journalism education, the
same thing is occurring among those people responsible for
educating journalism students. Educators, as was
mentioned earlier, would appear likely to have a more
favorable attitude toward the education their programs
provide than do news professionals. This is not to say
these educators are completely convinced they are
providing flawless journalistic preparation for soon-to-be
news-editorial employees. As the literature review
indicates, some educators lament the weaknesses with the
requirements, structure, and teaching processes that
afflict so many journalism programs. Yet their attitudes
in this area are not nearly as damning as those of news

professionals.

43

Educators' approach toward journalism education, in
conclusion, is that this education is far from what they
want it to be. But many in this group are still convinced
journalism education has made worthwhile improvements and
consider it to be a dependable mode of readying students
for the media workplace.

As an aside to this discussion about attitudes, a
point that has to be recognized in noting these
constituencies' preferential responses (be they favorable
or unfavorable) toward each other and toward journalism
education is that these attitudes do not occur in a
vacuum. They are, rather, elicited within the framework
of both groups' own social situations, about which they
also have attitudes. Thus, the behavior which they
exhibit is not only mediated by their attitudes toward
each other or toward journalism education. Instead, it is
mediated by a combination of these attitudes plus the
attitudes that already exist in these people's own social
situations. How they respond depends on what their
predispositions toward journalism education are, and on
how those predispositions are activated by what is
happening in terms of this particular area of concern
(journalism education). These predispositions are then
coupled with these groups' own ongoing situations, the
ultimate result being either positive, negative, or

neutral.

44

This study also attempted to expose these groups'
opinions. Through these outwardly expressed opinions
about each other, educators and news professionals make
known their knowledge of what the other is--or at least of
what they believe the other is--after filtering that
knowledge through their own perceptions and social
situations.

What news professionals know about educators, the
literature review leads one to reason, is seriously
deficient——so much so that educators view it as a major
contributor to what is wrong with journalism education
today. Many news professionals, as has been observed,
express similarly negative opinions about educators based
on their own knowledge of that group. The primary
knowledge they have of educators, it would appear, is
through the journalism students they have come across.
Hence, this results in the repeatedly expressed qualms
with the journalism education processes. Whether or not
what each constituency says it "knows" about the other is
exactly true does not matter: what does matter is that
these opinions exist and they have ramifications on how
members of these two groups conduct their interactions, or
choose not to conduct them.

Underlying all acknowledgement of how journalism
educators and news professionals have formulated

perceptions, attitudes, and opinions is the fact that

45
somewhere, somehow, each member of those groups has
developed feelings about members of the other group.
These feelings are not quickly developed, nor are they
quickly modified. They are, instead, deeply entrenched in
the background of each news professional and educator,
coloring these people's perceptions and attitudes toward
the other group.

In lieu of what the literature has already brought
forth, one can almost sense a kind of "anti—journalism
education" mentality existing in the feelings of many news
professionals. It also seems these unflattering feelings
are more intense than the sometimes-negative feelings
journalism educators have expressed toward journalists in
the field. Perhaps this perceived phenomenon exists
because of what could be called a natural progression,
with journalism schools preparing many of the students who
fill the ranks of the media. This development may mean
more media professionals are in more regular contact with
journalism education (by way of these students) than
educators usually may be with the media.

In any event, with the techniques utilized in this
study, some significant, well-based statements have been
made about the deeply rooted feelings of Michigan
newspaper professionals toward journalism education,
educators, and students. The direction of the research

findings was such that one believes there may be some sort

46
of mentality among members of the media (and maybe even
more so among newspaper people) in which disparity with
journalism schools has long been in existence. These
types of malcontent feelings are separate from perceptions
or attitudes; they have long been an established norm in
the background of news professionals and permeate all of
of their reactions to and interactions with journalism
education.

What, then, is the weight of the theoretical evidence
to be presented? As for news professionals, the realities
of today's hectic media work world and the expectations of
their readers, viewers, and listeners are integral
components in determining how they view journalism
programs and in looking at how they believe these programs
should be developed. For many reasons--the most important
being the expectations of their audience--news
professionals want, need, and actually demand entry-level
employees who can step into news-editorial positions with
both feet on the ground, who require little or no
coddling, and who immediately produce quality work with
few disruptions.

One primary factor responsible for these emphatic
demands is the economic structure of the media. News
operations, most of which are financially lean operations,
simply cannot afford employees on the payroll who are not

adequately prepared to handle the rigorous workplace these

47
news operations most often present. These operations are,
after all, a business.

Another factor includes a set of expectations: those
of the public, which has come to expect a quality
newspaper or newscast, regardless of the makeup of the
staff which turns out that product. The public cares
little if it is an entry-level news person on a news staff
who was responsible for a poorly reported, edited, or
written story. All those readers or viewers know--much to
their disapproval--is the product is below the standards
they have come to expect from this newspaper or television
or radio station. The weight of the evidence here is
clear: News professionals' expectations of and needs from
beginning news-editorial employees-based on the realities
of the marketplace-carry great weight in determining those
professionals' perceptions of and attitudes toward
journalism programs. If journalism students from those
programs fill their needs adequately, they perceive the
programs positively; if not, the perception is apt to be
less positive.

Conversely, the perceptions and attitudes of those in
journalism education programs is also crucial to how the
educational criteria of those programs is established. A
combination of what these educators deem important in a
journalism student's total educational program, along with

the educators' perceptions of what the marketplace wants

48

from these students, largely constitutes what university-
level journalism schools' curricula contain. Here again,
the importance of recognizing the educators' perceptions,
attitudes, opinions, and feelings is apparent: Analyzing
the sum of these elements gives the researcher a base of
understanding the factors impacting the journalism
curriculum decision-making process and allows for the
creation of theories as to why the journalism educator-
news professional relationship has evolved as it has.

Based on the previously discussed theoretical
considerations and related background assumptions, a
central proposition was set prior to conducting the study:
There is an accumulation of relationships between
journalism schools' criteria for education in journalism
and news professionals' expectations from students who
graduate from journalism programs, and these relationships
are constantly evolving. The more positively the two
constituencies interact, the better the designing of
curriculum and the defining of core requirements would be
for journalism education. However, this proposition first
needs to be adequately tested.

To test the proposition, hypotheses were formed:

Hl. Weekly newspaper professionals in Michigan have
less favorable attitudes toward journalism educators and
journalism school-trained students in the state than do

professionals who work for the state's daily newspapers.

49

HZ. Weekly newspaper professionals in Michigan are
also less familiar with the operations of university-level
journalism programs in the state than are daily newspaper
professionals.

H3. Those Michigan newspaper professionals who
interact more regularly with the state's university-level
journalism programs have more favorable perceptions of and
attitudes toward those programs than do Michigan newspaper
professionals who do not interact regularly with those
programs.

H4. Newspaper professionals in Michigan who have
worked longer in their current profession are more likely
to have less favorable attitudes toward journalism
education and the relationship between newspaper
professionals and journalism educators in the state than
do newspaper professionals who have not been in that
particular field for as long a time.

H5. Michigan university-level journalism programs
that make some kind of on-the-job experience part of their
academic requirement for graduation are perceived by the
state's newspaper professionals as better for preparing
students for news-editorial positions than state
journalism programs that do not have this requirement.

H6. Michigan university journalism educators believe
journalism students are better prepared for news-editorial

work than do Michigan's newspaper professionals.

III. METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The following question served as a statement
describing the problem which was examined throughout this
in-depth study: What is the relationship between
educational criteria for the university-level journalism
programs in Michigan and characteristics of Michigan
newspaper professionals and their expectations of students
who graduate from these universities with a journalism
degree?

Specifically, the study proposed to achieve these
objectives:

1. To delineate the nature and pattern of criteria
for education in journalism at Michigan's universities and
the state's newspaper professionals' expectations from
journalism graduates.

2. To examine factors that may affect attitudes,
opinions, perceptions, and feelings of Michigan
journalism educators as well as newspaper professionals in
developing journalism educational criteria

50

51

3. To identify indicators of the relationship
between Michigan daily newspaper professionals'
expectations and university-level educational criteria.

4. To generate some conclusions and generalizations,
and to offer some suggestions pertaining to an improved
interaction between Michigan's university journalism
programs and a better education for students.

Factors with which the study concerned itself are:

l. The extent to which age, education, training, and
other parts of Michigan newspaper professionals'
backgrounds determine their perception of journalism
graduates' preparation for the newspaper job market.

2. The extent to which Michigan newspaper
professionals' attitudes toward, perceptions and opinions
of, and feelings about journalism education determine
their consideration of journalism graduates for jobs and
other interactions with journalism education programs.

3. The extent to which the various structures of
journalism education programs (skills taught, required.
courses, internships, instructors, etc.) determine
Michigan newspaper professionals' perceptions of those
programs.

4. The extent to which the level and frequency of
interactions among educators who formulate journalism
education criteria at Michigan university-level programs

and the state's newspaper professionals who hold a

52
definite set of expectations from journalism graduates
will determine these groups' perceptions of each other.

The method utilized in the execution of this study
consisted of the techniques of a mail survey. This
technique was selected because it customarily yields
productive data at a low cost. With any survey technique,
as stated by Charles H. Backstrom and Gerald Hursh-Cesar,
many characteristics have to be taken into consideration
to achieve maximum results.48
These characteristics were closely adhered to in the
design of the questionnaire.

First, the study followed a systematic format with a
specific set of rules, and it followed an orderly logic of
operations. It also was impartial (picking units of a
population without prejudice or preference),
representative (surveying representative units of a
population), contemporary (that is, fact-finding and
current more than historical), and replicable (allowing
others to use the same methods in the same ways to get
essentially the same results).

In addition, the survey was theory-based, with its
operations guided by relevant principles of human
behavior, and self-monitoring, with its procedures

designed in ways that revealed unplanned or unwanted

 

48Charles H. Backstrom and Gerald Hursh-Cesar, Survey
Research, second ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981),

pp. 3-4.

53
distortions that occur. Finally, the questionnaire was
quantitative, with numerical values assigned to non-
numerical characteristics of behaviors so there is uniform
interpretation of these characteristics.

The survey was also formulated to comply with valid,
reliable, and unbiased principles. Steps were followed in
ensuring the survey measured the data that was intended to
be measured. Also, to ensure reliability, data was
gathered as consistently as possible with dependability of
information from one respondent to another. Furthermore,
to avoid bias--prejudicing or skewing the results of a
measurement--concern was given to identifying and reducing
all possible extraneous sources of bias.

As for the selection of mail surveys as the tool to
gather data, questions have at times been raised about the
reliability of this method. But, as sociologists William
J. Goode and Paul K. Hatt observed in their book, Methods
in §ocial Research, mail surveys remain a useful technique
in sociological research that when employed in proper
research designs can be frequently rewarding.49

To maximize the chances of success via this mail
survey and achieve an optimal response rate, complete
instructions were provided and a format was followed that

spelled out the respondents' task and made it reasonably

 

49William J. Goode and Paul K. Hatt, Methods in Social
Research (New York: McGraw—Hill, 1952), p. 170.

54
easy to finish the questionnaire. Also, another step
taken to increase the response rate was use of a stamped,
self-addressed return envelop for each respondent.

As for sampling procedures, a stratified random
sampling of Michigan newspaper editors was drawn to supply
the names of those persons who received questionnaires.
Few sampling considerations were made insofar as the
newspapers were concerned since the survey included each
daily and weekly paper listed in the Michigan Press
Association's 1986 directory. Although the directory does
not list every newspaper in the state (since some are not
members of the association), it did provide virtual
coverage of all papers in Michigan. Sampling
considerations among the state's journalism education
programs were also not strongly considered since an
attempt was made to send a questionnaire to every
journalism instructor at all colleges and universities
that offer journalism degrees. To ensure complete
coverage of instructors, each university's journalism or
communications department was called for the names of
current instructors in those programs. Programs included
in the study were Michigan State University, the
University of Michigan, Central Michigan University, Wayne
State University, Western Michigan University, Grand
Valley State College, Ferris State College, the University

of Detroit, and Oakland University.

55

The questionnaire was constructed to translate the
objectives of the study in measurable entities. With a
mail questionnaire, the researcher must be aware of the
special challenges that are presented. "Questionnaire
design here must do everything--supply motivation, create
communication, and win completion" by respondents,
implore Backstrom and Hursh-Cesar. But a solid response
rate can be achieved by designing the questionnaire
intelligently and efficiently, they affirm, and by
adhering to certain rules.50

Therefore, white space was used as much as possible
in this questionnaire, print was made easy to read, and
the questionnaire was limited to six pages. The
questionnaire was also broken down according to subject
matter--journalism education criteria, respondents'
perceptions and attitudes toward each other, demographic
and psychographic information. According to Backstrom and
Hursh-Cesar: "Respondents must believe they can complete
it (the questionnaire) on the spot without significant
effort or undue time."51 This point was also well-taken
in devising the questionnaire. The questionnaire was also
kept simple (proceeding from one question to the next),
provided no variation in instructions, and had consistent

page format. The survey tool used boxes and sectioning

 

soBackstrom and Hursh-Cesar, Surve esearch, p. 231.

511bid., pp. 232-33.

56
when dividing pages into different types of content for
different response problems. Also, no precodes were
printed into the boxes, to avoid mistakenly suggesting to
respondents that measures had high or low values.

Final measures used to help gain maximum response
rates included making the mailing envelope appear as much
as possible like a personal or business letter by using a
first-class stamp (not metered postage), a typewritten
(not labeled) address, and the name of the specific
respondent on the envelope (not "occupant" or something
similar). Each questionnaire was also accompanied by a
personal cover letter addressed to each respondent by
name.

The data processing and analysis for this study was
conducted at the Michigan State University Computer
Center. A descriptive and inferential statistical
analysis was made with the data collected. All data was
coded by Kenton Pfister and his wife, Sandra Pfister, who

was trained in coding procedures.

IV. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

For the purpose of this report, the findings of this
study of newspaper professionals and journalism educators
in Michigan have been organized under the following
categories: the demographic and psychographic background
of the respondents, based on their responses; the
frequency, significance, subject matter, and mode of the
interaction between journalism educators and newspaper
professionals across the state; indicators of the
relationship between journalism educators and newspaper
professionals: and generalizations and conclusions about

that relationship.

Analyzing the Responses

A total of 143 people returned the questionnaire used
as a tool to obtain data for this study. Insofar as the
background of those 143 respondents is concerned, the
findings indicate that 14 percent (N=20) were journalism
educators while almost three-fourths (72.7 percent: N=104)

57

58
were newspaper professionals. However, interestingly
enough, a little over 13 percent (N=19) of the respondents
identified themselves as both journalism educators as well
as newspaper professionals. As for a more specific
breakdown of those participating in the survey, of those
respondents who labeled themselves newspaper professionals
or both newspaper professionals and journalism
instructors, eleven (7.7 percent of all respondents) were
metropolitan daily editors, twenty-four (16.8 percent of
all respondents) were editors of "other" daily newspapers,
and seventy-eight (54.5 percent) were weekly newspaper
editors. Questionnaires were sent to the editors (or
other highest ranking newsroom official) of the fifty-two
daily newspapers listed in the Michigan Press
Association's 1986 directory, meaning that 67.3 percent of
all daily newspaper professionals who received
questionnaires took the time to fill out and return them.
Only those questionnaires that were completely filled out
were used for the purpose of this study.

The response rate among the 172 weekly newspaper
editors or other highest ranking newsroom person (again
selected from the Michigan Press Association's 1986
newspaper directory) who were sent questionnaires was 45.4
percent. Meanwhile, twenty-nine (20.3 percent of the
total number of respondents) were journalism educators;

that was 56.9 percent of all educators who were asked to

59
participate in the study. Journalism educators were
selected for participation based on telephone calls made
to the journalism or communications departments of all
universities in the state. Officials with those schools
were then asked for the names and addresses of all faculty
members who teach journalism courses. At universities
where there is no journalism department per se (such as
the University of Michigan), questionnaires were mailed to
the faculty members who teach what are considered to be
journalism courses.

Based on the return percentages--not the actual
number of questionnaires returned--it appears daily
newspaper professionals felt most compelled to return the
survey tool. An explanation for this occurrence might be
daily newspapers are quite frequently involved in the
hiring of news-editorial employees--and in the case of
smaller dailies, often hiring students from university
journalism programs. It may also be accurate to surmise
daily newspapers more regularly hire employees than weekly
newspapers, whose staffs are smaller and perhaps less
fluctuating. This situation, indeed, may point to another
possible explanation for the lagging response rate among
weekly newspaper publishers or editors: They may simply
have little cause for interaction with journalism schools
and thus may not have felt much of a need for or interest

to participate in a study of this nature.

60

All this notwithstanding, it is necessary to point
out that the weekly newspaper market is (and should be
even more so) a major source of entry-level positions for
recent journalism graduates seeking newspaper work. This
being the case, journalism educators may want to strongly
consider having the weekly newspaper professionals play a
significant role in formulating journalism curriculum that
best prepares students for all types of newspapering--
daily and weekly. On the other hand, some daily
newspapers--especially the larger metropolitan
dailies—-are probably not as likely to hire (or even
consider hiring) the vast majority of journalism graduates
churned out by universities. Instead, they may be
interested in only a select few journalism students from
the upper echelon of these programs. Despite this
seemingly obvious scenario, a greater percentage of
Michigan's daily newspaper professionals still returned
questionnaires. Perhaps this less-than-half response rate
among the weekly newspaper professionals is indicative of
the gap that may exist between that group and the state's
journalism education community.

In any event, the journalism educator return rate--
which at more than 50 percent was respectable--might have
been expected to be even higher than it was. A possible
explanation for this is that that questionnaire was mailed

in late May of 1986, when many educators had already

61
completed their school year and, in fact, left the
campuses. Follow-up telephone calls with journalism/
communications departments at participating schools
confirmed that some school years had ended; however, every
effort was made to forward the questionnaires to
educators' summer addresses when possible. Indeed, some
questionnaires were returned by journalism educators who
were away from their universities and at summer addresses.
Hence, this additional effort to reach educators had to be
a positive factor in achieving such a respectable return
rate. It should also be noted that the return rate among
journalism educators does not take into account
respondents who considered themselves both educators and
journalists. But, suffice to say, some of these people
hold integral positions on journalism schools' faculties
and, if included among the ranks of journalism educators,
would have pushed even higher the return rate for that

group.

Demographic and Psychographic Findings

One demographic indicator of the questionnaire
respondents--age distribution--was most revealing, as it
was determined that more than three-fourths of the
participants were thirty-one years of age or older. The

age breakdown among respondents was: thirty-one to forty

62
years, 34.3 percent (N=49): forty-one to fifty years, 23.8
percent (N=34): fifty-one to sixty years, 18.9 percent
(N=29): over sixty years, 4.3 percent (N=6). Only 4.3
percent (N=6) of the respondents were ages twenty-one to
twenty-five and 13 percent (N=19) were twenty-six to
thirty years. The data here indicate more than three in
four of the responding newspaper professionals or
journalism educators are over the age of thirty. And more
than 58 percent of those responding were in the thirty-one
to fifty age bracket.

As far as sex of the respondents is concerned, 79
percent (N=113) were male and 19.6 percent (N=28) were
female (two respondents failed to answer this question).
This finding, of course, is most noteworthy in that it
indicates that more than three in four responding
journalism educators and newspaper professionals from the
state of Michigan were male. Therefore, more men who
participated in the study are employed in decision-making
capacities at newspapers and working as educators.

As for the longevity of respondents, forty-two people
(29.4 percent of all respondents) reported working in
their present profession for more than twenty years-~a
greater number than in any category of response to this
question. However, four other categories each had more
than twenty respondents: ten to fourteen years, 20.3

percent (N=29); five to nine years, 18.9 percent (N=27);

63
fifteen to twenty years, 15.4 percent (N=22): three to
four years, 14.7 percent (N=21). Only one respondent said
that he or she had been working in this profession for one
or two years.

Are the questionnaire respondents settled in these
positions? According to responses to this inquiry, many
newspaper professionals and journalism educators are, but
a good number of them still are not. Eighty-five people
(55.4 percent) said they were settled in their jobs. Yet
fifty-four (37.8 percent) said they were not settled in
their jobs, while five people did not answer the question.
Therefore, although 85 percent of all respondents have
been in their profession for five or more years, not
nearly as many say they are settled in that profession.

When it comes to the level of education among
respondents, almost 60 percent (N=83) of all respondents--
both educators and newspaper professionals--have only some
formal college education or less, the survey responses
revealed. Sixty-one respondents (42.7 percent) have some
college education, while 11.2 percent (N=16) are only high
school graduates and a surprising 4.2 percent (N=6) have
only some high school education but are not graduates. In
the meantime, 15.4 percent (N=22) are college graduates,
14 percent (N=20) have completed some graduate work, and
11.9 percent (N=17) have completed their graduate

degrees.

64

Other demographical and psychographical questions
posed in the questionnaire asked participants about their
residence, family income, marital status, and membership
in civic/political/religious/cultural groups or
journalism organizations. The greatest number of
respondents--sixty—five (45.4 percent of all respondents)
--live in a small city. Thirty-three (23.1 percent)
reside in what they consider a rural setting, twenty-five
(17.5 percent) live in a suburb, fourteen (9.8 percent)
live in a large city, and four (2.8 percent) failed to
answer the question.

In addition, ninety-nine respondents (69.2 percent)
said they were members of civic, political, religious, or
cultural groups, while forty-two (29.4 percent) said they
were not. Eighty-five respondents (59.4 percent) were
members of journalism organizations such as the American
Newspaper Publishers Association, Sigma Delta Chi, or the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, and fifty-four (37.8 percent) were not.

Of the 137 respondents who answered a question asking
for their gross 1985 family income (six chose not to
answer), thirty-seven (25.9 percent) had an income over
$50,000. Another twenty-seven respondents (18.9 percent)
have family incomes in each of the $20,000 to $30,000 and
$40,000 to $50,000 categories. Twenty-five respondents

(17.5 percent) have incomes between $30,000 and $40,000,

65
while twenty respondents (14 percent) have incomes from
$10,000 to $20,000. Only one person said that he or she
has an income under $10,000.

Finally, a majority of those persons answering the
questionnaire are married. In all, 106 people (almost
three-fourths of all respondents) were married, while
eighteen (12.65 percent) were single, eleven (7.7 percent)
were divorced, three (2.1 percent) were separated, and one

(.7 percent) was widowed.

Interactions Between Respondents

The findings regarding the frequency, significance,
subject matter, and mode of interaction between journalism
educators and newspaper professionals are extremely
significant in deciphering the relationship between the
two groups. As for the frequency of their interaction,
38.5 percent of the respondents (N=55) said they
interacted occasionally with members from the other group.
Another 21.7 percent (N=31) interacted seldomly, 21
percent (N=30) interacted frequently, 10.5 percent (N=15)
interacted rarely, and 7 percent (N=10) never interacted.
So while the largest number of respondents said they
interacted occasionally with those from the other group,
virtually as many said they seldomly interacted as did

those who said they frequently interacted. In addition,

66
almost as many said they interacted rarely or never with
members of the other group. Thus, for two groups whose
missions would seem to be closely intertwined, interaction
is apparently not a commonplace occurrence. In view of
this wide variance in answers, these frequencies of
interactions would appear to be important determinants in
the state of the relationship between Michigan's newspaper
professionals and journalism educators--a fact that was
borne out in the data, as will be alluded to later in this
report.

Seven categories of discussion topics were offered to
respondents, with three answers dominant. The topics
attempted to take into account those areas in which
educators and newspaper professionals might more often
have discussions. Ninety people (62.9 percent of all
respondents) said that when they interacted with members
of the other group, the discussion focused on general
discussion of the media. Eighty-nine respondents (62.2
percent) interacted when dealing with the hiring of
students, and the same number said they engaged simply in
general discussion with those from the other group. Other
less frequent topics of interaction, according to the
responses, were journalism trends, 45.4 percent (N=65):
journalism technique, 38.5 percent (N=55): criticism of
each other, 21 percent (N=30): and journalism curriculum

planning, 18.2 percent (N=26). Respondents were able to

 

67
choose as many topics as they wished, and were also asked
to offer any other topics not included in the
questionnaire.

These totals are evidence of the nature of the
interactions between these two groups, with general
discussion topics and, not surprisingly, student hiring
being more common points of interaction. Student hiring
is certainly one area in which the two groups are likely
to be drawn together because one of the groups (educators)
is training many of those students whom newspaper
professionals consider when filling jobs on their staffs.
The focus of contention--on which much of the rationale
for this study was based--is whether journalism schools
are still considered a primary training ground for
newspaper employees.

Unfortunately, the responses show interaction is
noticeably lacking in some crucial topics upon which a
relationship between educators and newspaper professionals
could be developed. With fewer than one in five
respondents saying they interact on the subject of
journalism curriculum planning, for example, it is
apparent Michigan's journalism educators and newspaper
professionals are not working closely and seeking each
others' viewpoints when it comes to the formulation of
university curriculum for journalism students. This lack

of contact on such an important matter to both groups'

68
interests is an undeniable indicator that the journalism
education and newspaper professionals in this state have
not been making advances toward each other in terms of
perfecting educational tools--and, worse still, may not be

particularly concerned about doing so.

V. INDICATORS OF THE RELATIONSHIP

Based on the data accumulated from returned
questionnaires, there is reason for close analysis of the
possibility that weekly newspaper professionals in the
state of Michigan are more dissatisfied than publishers
and editors of daily papers with the processes within
journalism education programs and the instructors at the
state's universities. Prior to conducting this study, it
was generally assumed Michigan's weekly newspapers have
somewhat more at stake when it comes to journalism
education because weeklies have positions that provide
smaller salaries and a wider variety of responsibilities.
Given this, it is weekly newspaper professionals who may
be more likely to consider journalism-educated students as
employees, filling their papers' important jobs (but less
lucrative than major daily positions) with more
inexperienced graduates straight from college. At the
same time, many daily newspapers might not even be exposed
to these so-called "raw" products of journalism programs.
Instead, they hire these people only after they have had

69

70
extensive professional seasoning--many times with weekly
newspapers.

But theories and speculation aside, the negative
views of journalism education must be diagnosed for true
indicators of where the relationship stood at the time
that this questionnaire was disseminated across the state.
Toward that end, first, it appears that newspaper
professionals who work for the state's weekly newspapers
are significant predictors of several meaningful
relationships between journalism educators and newspaper
people. One hypothesis established prior to sending the
questionnaire to educators and newspaper professionals was
that those people who work for Michigan's weekly
newspapers have developed less favorable attitudes toward
journalism educators and journalism school-educated
students than those newspaper professionals who work for
daily newspapers (particularly larger daily papers). The
data appear to support this hypothesis, as evidenced by
newspaper professionals' responses to a statement on the
practicality of journalism educators' instruction.

Among all newspaper professionals who were asked for
their feelings toward the statement "journalism educators
have impractical ideas about newspaper operations that
don't work out in practice," this hypothesis regarding
weekly newspaper professionals' attitudes toward

journalism educators and students was tenable. As Table 1

71
indicates, of the seventy-five weekly newspaper
professionals who responded to this statement, forty-five
--or almost two-thirds of this group--agreed that
journalism educators have impractical ideas about
newspaper operations, while only seven weekly newspaper
respondents (or less than 10 percent from that group) said
they disagreed--meaning they were the only respondents ,
among weekly newspaper professionals who believed A
journalism educators had realistic views of the way a -

newspaper functions.

Table l--Daily/Weekly Beliefs on J-Education Practices
Statement: Journalism educators have impractical ideas
about newspaper operations that don't work out in
practice.

Respondent: Newspaper professional/description of

 

 

 

 

 

 

workplace

Dailv Haaklv
Response:
Agraa, 8 (29%) 45 (60%)
Eautral 11 (39%) 23 (31%)
Eipaqree 9 (32%) 7 ( 9%)
Total 28 75
x2=1o.246 2 degrees of freedom P=.031 c=.331

This finding may possibly be explained in terms of
these weekly professionals' lack of meaningful discourse

with educators. It may also be explained by adhering to a

72

perception among weekly newspaper professionals that
journalism students lack training to handle the work
expected of them as they enter a weekly news-editorial
position. In addition, there is a hunch that these
professionals with weekly newspapers believe journalism
students are not fulfilling the needs and expectations
when those papers have entry-level positions to staff.

Along these same lines as this first finding, a
second hypothesis offered going into this study was:
Michigan's weekly newspaper professionals are less
familiar with the operations of journalism schools in the
state than are daily newspaper professionals. This
hypothesis also was borne out in the data, as indicated in

Table 2.

Table 2--News Professionals' Understanding of J-Schools

Statement: Newspaper professionals generally have a good
understanding of journalism school operations.

Respondent: Newspaper professional/description of
workplace

 

 

 

 

 

Dailv Waaklv
Response:
Aqraa 11 (39%) 14 (18%)
Eautral 4 (14%) 31 (41%)
Disagrae 13 (47%) 31 (41%)
Total 28 76

 

x2=6.09 2 degrees of freedom P=.052 C=.288

73

This development could very well be explained by
agreeing with the belief that weekly newspaper
professionals in this state are not compelled to become
more familiar with journalism schools or educators.
Furthermore, it may also be widely held that Michigan's
journalism educators do not even work toward a goal of
fostering a relatively positive and worthwhile
relationship with newspaper professionals in their same
state, instead concentrating their conciliatory efforts
more on the daily newspaper world or on other
communications fields such as broadcast news, public
relations, or advertising. These other fields, in turn,
would probably represent areas in which greater numbers of
journalism students are expressing interest as careers.
For a number of reasons--among them being lower salaries,
lack of prestige, poor working conditions, working in
rural locations, and long work hours--weekly newspapers
would seem unlikely to be a primary career objective for a
majority of journalism students. Thus, it is not overly
surprising that to see this apparently distant
relationship between journalism educators and weekly
newspaper professionals. This, of course, does not
dismiss this problem; it only serves as well-founded
insight into why the problem exists.

As Table 2 indicates, more than 40 percent (N=31)

of the seventy-six responding weekly newspaper

74
professionals flat-out disagreed with the statement
"newspaper professionals generally have a good idea about
the operations of journalism schools." Another thirty-one
weekly newspaper respondents were neutral toward the
statement. Therefore, not only do many weekly
professionals believe journalism educators have
impractical ideas when it comes to newspapers, many also
agree that they themselves are woefully lacking in
knowledge of just what is transpiring in journalism
schools nowadays. So, according to these weekly newspaper
professionals around the state, the cause of negative
relationships between themselves and journalism educators
appears to be rooted in both groups of professionals.

This realization by weekly newspaper professionals
should be interpreted positively when looking for
solutions to lessening the gap that apparently exists
between the journalism education and weekly newspaper
professions. Many weekly newspaper people, it would seem,
do not affix "blame" solely to themselves or to journalism
educators (or, for that matter, to students of journalism
schools). Instead, they see the situation as a mutual
problem that is best addressed through mutual attention.
This status obviously bodes well for improving this
relationship.

Another hypothesis brought forth prior to conducting

the study was that those newspaper professionals who

75
are more familiar with the state's university journalism
programs have more favorable attitudes toward these
programs and the journalism-trained students than do
Michigan newspaper professionals who have not become more
familiar with journalism education at the university
level. Among the newspaper professionals who responded to
a statement about journalism students' preparedness for
news-editorial jobs, a positive correlation was found
between the extent of newspaper professionals'
interactions with journalism educators and those
professionals' perceptions of journalism education. Thus,
the hypothesis in this regard was tenable, as seen in

Table 3.

Table 3--News Professionals' Beliefs About J-Students

Statement: Journalism students are prepared to handle
news-editorial jobs.

Respondent: Newspaper professional/frequency of
interaction with journalism educators

 

 

 

 

 

Frequently/ Rarely/
Occaaionallv Seldom Never
Response:
Agree l32,(63%) 9 (35%) 4 (16%)
Eautral 13 (25%) 7 (27%) 11 (44%)
Disagree 6 (12%) 10 (38%) 10 (40%)
Total 51 26 25

 

X2=18.603 4 degrees of freedom P=.0009 C=.393

76

Table 3 shows of the fifty-one newspaper
professionals who said they frequently or occasionally
interacted with journalism educators, about two-thirds
agreed journalism students are indeed prepared to handle
news-editorial jobs. Another twenty-six newspaper
professionals said they seldomly interact with journalism
educators, and of that group ten (about 40 percent of
those educators who answered "seldom") disagreed with the
contention that journalism students are prepared for the
world of newspapers. Another seven from this group were
neutral toward this statement. Still another most
enlightening finding came from the twenty-five newspaper
professionals who said they rarely or never interact with
journalism educators, where 40 percent of those
professionals disagreed that journalism students are ready
to step right into today's newsrooms and another 44
percent were neutral. From this data, there appears to be
a positive relationship between a newspaper person's
degree of familiarity with journalism educators/education
and how the newspaper person views the educators/
education. The greater the level of familiarity, it
stands to reason, the better the reaction toward
journalism education in the university setting and how
that education prepares a student for newspaper work.
Additionally, one may assume, the more familiar the

newspaper person is with the processes of journalism

77
education, the more accurate his or her view is of that
education.

In the meantime, this hypothesis regarding newspaper
professionals' familiarity with journalism education and
the correlation with the professionals' attitudes toward
journalism educators and students was also tenable based
on these professionals' responses to whether educators
have a good understanding of newspaper operations. As
seen in Table 4, a respondent's amount of interaction with
journalism education seems to have some correlation with

his/her feelings on educators.

Table 4--News Professional/J-Educator Interactions

Statement: Journalism educators generally do not have a
good understanding of newspaper operations.

Respondent: Newspaper professional/frequency of
interaction with educators

 

 

 

 

 

Frequently/ Rarely/

Occasionally Seldom Never
Response:
Agree 14 L27%) 15 (60%) 13 (54%)
Eautral 22 (43%) 6 (24%) 7 (29%)
Disagree 15 (30%) 4 (16%) 4 (17%)
Total 51 25 24
X2=9.27 4 degrees of freedom P=.054 C=.291

Of the fifty-one professionals who said they

frequently or occasionally interact with journalism

78
educators, almost half were neutral toward the statement
and almost one-third disagreed. However, 60 percent of
those who seldomly interact with educators agreed with the
statement, and more than half of those who rarely or never
interact with educators also agreed.

What these responses--correlated with the newspaper
professionals' level of interaction with journalism
educators--give cause to believe is that there appears to
be formidable ties between newspaper professionals'
relationships with journalism educators and how those
educators are viewed. If newspaper professionals are more
familiar with their counterparts in journalism education,
they will be more likely to perceive favorably those
educators and the students schooled in journalism
programs. Conversely, it is also apparent that newspaper
professionals who do not have regular interactions with
journalism educators will hold more negative views toward
those educators, their students, and the quality of
education taking place in university journalism programs
throughout Michigan.

In addition to the already-highlighted points, it was
hypothesized before the study that Michigan newspaper
professionals who have worked in their current profession
for a greater period of time have less favorable attitudes
toward journalism education and toward the relationships

between newspaper professionals and journalism educators

79
than do those newspaper people who have not been in that
particular field for as long a period of time. Among
those professionals who responded to a statement asking if
they are being sought out by journalism educators for
curriculum planning, this hypothesis was tenable. Table 5

brings this finding into focus.

Table 5--News Professionals' Beliefs on J-Curriculum

Statement: News professionals are a source of which
journalism educators are not making good enough use in
developing journalism curriculum.

Respondent: News professional/years worked in present
profession

 

 

 

 

 

Eaara 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-plu§__
Response:

Strongly Agree 2 (11%) 6 (30%) 7 (30%) 9 (21%)
Agrgg 12 (63%) 6 (30%) 15 (65%) 30 (71%)
NeutralzDisagree 5 (26%) 8 (40%) l (5%) 3 (8%)
Total 19 20 227 42
X2=18.51 6 degrees of freedom P=.005 C=.389

As can be seen, among the forty-two newspaper
professionals who responded to this statement and who have
worked in that profession for fifteen or more years, nine
strongly agreed with the statement and another thirty
agreed. However, only three of these professionals
disagreed with the statement. This ultimately is an

overwhelming indication from veteran newspaper

80
professionals that they feel a good deal of detachment
from journalism education and believe they are
underutilized as a source in the development of journalism
courses at the university level.

At the same time, of the twenty-three newspaper
professionals who had worked in their jobs from ten to
fourteen years, seven strongly agreed that journalism
educators are not making good enough use of newspaper
professionals' expertise in developing well-rounded
journalism curriculum and another fifteen agreed with this
statement. Only one respondent from that group disagreed,
meaning another strong majority of newspaper people with a
good deal of experience believed they are being
overlooked as a source of information by journalism
educators as they develop curriculum.

Taking this correlation a step further, of the
thirty-nine newspaper professionals who said they have
worked in that line of duty for zero to nine years,
thirteen--or one-third of that group--were neutral toward
the statement or disagreed with it. This represents a
much smaller percentage of respondents in agreement with
the statement than was the case with those respondents who
had a greater number of years in this field. Therefore,
it would stand to conclude a newspaper person's experience
coincides to some degree with his/her detachment from

journalism programs.

81
Another interesting finding that casts more light on
this hypothesis was found when looking at the correlation
between newspaper professionals' years in that job and
their responses to a statement about journalism educators'
lack of understanding of newspaper operations. This

development is apparent in Table 6.

Table 6-—J-Educators' Understanding of Newspapers

Statement: Journalism educators generally do not have a
good understanding of newspaper operations.

Respondent: Newspaper professional/years worked in
present profession

 

 

 

 

 

Years 0-4 5-9 10-14 lS-plu§__
Response:

Agrag 7 (37%) 6 (3_%) 10 (43%) 20 (49%)
Egutral 9 (47%) 3 (16%) 11 (48%) 12 (29%)
Disagree 3 (16%) 10 (52%) 2 (9%) 9 (22%)
Total 19 19 23 41
x2=14.957 6 degrees of freedom P=.020 C=.358

Here, of the forty-one newspaper professionals with
fifteen or more years in this profession, twenty agreed
with the statement and another twelve were neutral.
Meanwhile, only nine of these veteran news people
disagreed. Moving along, those with ten to fourteen years
in this field yielded similarly noteworthy results, with

ten of the twenty-three respondents in this category

82

agreeing with the statement and eleven holding neutral
views. Only two respondents here disagreed with the
assumption that journalism educators have a poor
understanding of newspaper operations. Intriguingly
enough, of the thirty-eight newspaper professionals who
had logged between zero and nine years in this line of
work, the responses were split about evenly among those
agreeing with the statement, neutral toward it, or
disagreeing with it. The conclusion reached from these
answers is this: There appears to be a correlation
between the years a person has spent in the newspaper
business and his or her attitudes toward journalism
education. The more experience one has, the more likely
he or she is to view this education negatively.

A positive explanation for the findings in these
correlations may be that people with more experience in
that profession have become further removed from the

circles of journalism education than newspaper

professionals with fewer years' experience. These persons

with less experience, it could then be assumed, are not as

distantly removed from their college years: surely many of

those people went to journalism school. Thus they are
perhaps more likely to maintain more regular and/or

meaningful communication with journalism schools and

educators than those newspaper professionals who have been

working in the same line of work for an extended period.

83

Along these same lines, one might also be able to
surmise that more of those professionals with a greater
number of years in this field did not have formal college
education--or certainly did not have formal journalism
education at the university level. Not having gone
through the four years of more of schooling in journalism
or another field, these professionals may be more
skeptical about the worth of such education than those
professionals with more recent exposure to the rigors of a
formal journalism education. It is, admittedly, a far-
reaching assumption to say that one with more years in
newspaper work might be more likely to have no college
education and thus view that education in a more negative
vein. Yet, particularly with weekly newspaper veterans,
it is not in error to recognize college training has not
been part of many of their backgrounds. This being the
case, journalism school then may not be viewed as a
necessary route of preparation by many of those
professionals. In fact, as the previously stated data
expose, journalism education apparently is looked upon
with apathy by substantial numbers of newspaper
professionals--especially those who have a greater number
of years' experience in that field.

Another hypothesis made prior to the study was that
weekly newspaper professionals are more likely than daily

professionals to believe it is important journalism

84
students are familiar with newspaper operations and
possess the skills required in day-to-day news-editorial
work. From the questionnaire responses, a correlation was
found between the type of newspaper for which a
professional works (daily or weekly) and the
professional's beliefs about journalism students' skills.
As shown in Table 7, these professionals were asked to
rank as a high, medium, or low priority how important they
believe it is that journalism students are knowledgeable
about newspaper operations. The findings from the
responses to this statement proved the hypothesis to be

tenable.

Table 7--J-Students' Knowledge of Newspaper Operations

Statement: It is important that journalism graduates are
knowledgeable about newspaper operations.

Repsondent: Newspaper professional/description of
workplace

 

 

 

 

Dailv .flaaklv
Response:
High Priority 0 (0%) 12 (16%)
Medium Priority 18 (64%) 54 (12%)
Egg Priority 10 (28%) l2l(l6%)
Total 28 75

 

x2=15.08 2 degrees of freedom P=.009 C=.338

85

As noted in this table, of the seventy-five
responding eewspaper professionals, twelve (or about one
in six) said it was a high priority to them that
journalism students have a good understanding of newspaper
operations, while more than two-thirds of those
professionals said it was a medium priority. In the
meantime, among the twenty-eight daily newspaper
professionals who responded to this question (with both
metropolitan and other daily professionals combined),
eighteen said students' familiarity with newspaper
operations was a medium priority and ten said it was a low
priority. Not a single daily professional, however,
described as a high priority journalism students being
familiar with newspaper operations.

What these findings allude to is a distinct
possibility that weekly newspaper professionals have a
stronger need than daily professionals for new employees
who are already familiar with newspapers. This phenomenon
may be explained by examining the positions weekly
newspaper professionals have to fill on their staffs.
First, those staffs are obviously smaller than the staffs
of dailies, which because of their frequency of
publication and other factors require a larger news-
editorial presence. Additionally, the positions on weekly
papers into which students are hired require a staff

member to perform a variety of functions, even if this

86

person is an entry-level employee--which is most often the
case on weekly newspapers. This is vastly different from
daily papers, where in many instances an employee's duties
are well-defined and less all-encompassing than on a
weekly. Because of the nature of the jobs with weekly
papers, it is apparent these professionals require
employees with a broader knowledge of newspaper
operations. Still, as earlier-discussed findings pointed
out, these professionals apparently are not satisfied with
the quality of the journalism graduates they encounter.

Suffice to say, the requirements of newspapers differ
markedly based on the stature and market of the newspaper,
and those requirements were reflected in the Michigan

survey respondents' answers.

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Through this survey of Michigan newspaper
professionals and journalism educators who teach at the
state's universities, some well-founded and even striking
generalizations can be made about the nature of the
relationship between these two groups. Those
generalizations may be worthwhile in understanding what
must be termed as weaknesses in journalism teaching
programs at Michigan's universities--particularly as they
pertain to preparing students for newspaper careers. They
could also lead the way to highlighting characteristics of
newspaper professionals that coincide with their attitudes
toward and beliefs about journalism educators and the
students these educators train. The conclusions and
generalizations also bring to the forefront suggestions
for ways the apparently less-than-optimal relationship
between the state's newspaper professionals and journalism
educators could be improved.

One primary conclusion that can be made is weekly
newspaper professionals in Michigan by and large are more

87

88
dissatisfied with the status of journalism education at
the university level than are newspaper professionals with
dailies. The dissatisfaction is apparent based on weekly
professionals' widely expressed unhappiness with
journalism educators as well as the professionals'
frequent negative reactions toward students who graduate
from journalism schools. A sampling of comments to open-
ended questions asked of all questionnaire respondents
turned up vivid remarks from weekly newspaper
professionals about the discrepancies they believe exist
today between what and how journalism students are taught
and the demands placed upon these students when they enter
the workplace.
For instance, one weekly editor pleaded with
journalism educators:
Please, please, please teach writing skills,
i.e. grammar and punctuation. All journalism
schools in this state have been remiss in this
responsibility. It is inconceivable to me that a
school alleges to turn out writers and never teaches
them writing. This is an extremely sore point with
me. I believe students should sue journalism schools
for telling them they can go out and be a reporter
without having taught them the basics of good
writing. . . . Journalism professors do students a
grave injustice by creating the impression that
weekly newspapers are somehow inferior to dailies.
This creates attitudinal problems about journalists
entering the profession. . . . Teach students how to
punctuate and how to use proper grammar.
Many weekly professionals emphasized what might be
termed the unrealistic views of the newspaper profession

they believe journalism schools too frequently possess--

89

or, at least, the views of the profession that the
products of these schools (the journalism-trained
students) appear to have as they enter the working world.
"Entry-level journalists haven't been prepared for the
less pleasant side of the business--short deadlines, long
drives in nasty weather, etc.," wrote one matter-of-fact
weekly professional, showing the unglamorous world of
weekly journalism. "Newspapering doesn't happen in a
clean, brightly lit newsroom between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m."

Underlying the many comments rendered by weekly
newspaper professionals was a widespread theme that
journalism education simply does not instill in students
and then hone the skills required if and when one takes on
the responsibility of working for a weekly newspaper--or,
for that matter, a daily. Challenged one weekly editor,
voicing obvious displeasure with the lack of regimentation
to which journalism students have been exposed during
their years on a college campus:

Be real with the kids. Let 'em get their nails
dirty ASAP because the profession is HARD,
EXCRUCIATING work with an inordinate number of
pitfalls. It's also a profession into which only the
best and brightest should be allowed. We need more
intellectual, sensitive, articulate, educated
journalists. So far, I've met mostly inarticulate
people who don't know their stylebook rules and have
a vocabulary of an embryo. . . . Allow only those
who love language, respect it, and read incessantly
to graduate. We don't need no more morons, ya know.

This strongly voiced opinion on the lack of weekly

newspaper orientation in Michigan journalism schools'

9O

curricula focuses on a crying need for further study into
and understanding of the weekly newspaper community in
this state. What, specifically, are the requirements of
weekly newspapers? What do journalism schools need to do
to better meet those requirements? Is a massive
restructuring necessary? Is it even worth journalism
schools' effort to improve their programs in this manner?
Is there enough student interest to warrant these changes?
These are stern questions that deserve to be answered, and
those answers are best gained through more detailed study.

Through a study of this nature, curriculum could be
improved so journalism programs are better equipped to
provide the type of education many newspaper professionals
feel is lacking. Toward this end, weekly newspaper
professionals could be surveyed to determined exactly the
coursework the believe is needed to best prepare students
for careers in weekly newspapers. In fact, this is one
recommendation that can be made based on the emphatically-
voiced findings: Michigan's weekly newspaper community
apparently feels grossly unrecognized and largely
disregarded when it comes to the manner in which
journalism schools teach students. Whether journalism
educators themselves believe their curricula is weak in
terms of newspaper education is immaterial (and the belief
is that journalism schools do lack an emphasis on weekly

newspapers): since weekly professionals perceive this to

91
be the case, a most constructive approach to follow is to
try to deal with these perceptions straightforwardly,
recognize they exist, and begin making the decisions that
can bridge this ever-widening and harmful gap that weekly
newspaper professionals cited.

Admittedly, weekly newspapers are an important force
in this state, as shown by the fact that more than half of
the survey respondents were weekly journalists. For much
of the state's rural population--and, to a large degree,
even in larger communities--weeklies are a major source of
local information. Thus, their worth to the people of
this state is obvious. As a review of journalism
education literature yielded, there are universities in
this country that, in recognition of the significance of
weekly newspapers, have established so-called "community
journalism" sequences whose primary purpose is to prepare
students who are committed to such a career. A program
such as this at Michigan's universities, one can assume,
would be welcomed with open arms by the state's weekly
newspaper community.

Based on this less-than-sterling state of affairs
between journalism educators and weekly newspaper
professionals throughout Michigan, it is recommended that
an in-depth study of the state's weekly newspaper
professionals be performed to determine ways in which they

believe their interests could be better served by

92
journalism schools. In the same study--or perhaps a
separate one--journalism school administrators across
Michigan (or nationwide, to obtain a larger sampling)
could also be questioned to determine specifically what
their programs are doing (or not doing) to meet needs and
expectations of weekly newspapers. These administrators
should also be asked to suggest viable and achievable ways
they believe their programs can alter or update their
curriculum to assist the weekly newspaper industry. From
these studies, information could be collected that would
be most telling in possibly restructuring journalism
curricula to provide more relevant and worthwhile training
for students who pursue editorial work with weekly
newspapers.

Another conclusion drawn from the findings based on
Michigan newspaper professionals' and journalism
educators' responses is that it is essential for the two
groups to work more closely and become more familiar with
one another. As the data indicate, the more familiar
newspaper professionals said they were with journalism
schools and the teaching that goes on in those schools,
the more likely they were to perceive those schools in a
positive manner. Because of this, it can be observed
generally that interaction between educators and newspaper
people is an encouraging development and leads to more

positive relationships between the two groups. This then

93

means the more familiar newspaper professionals are with
the state's university journalism educators, the more apt
those professionals are to be satisfied with the
educational processes that occur in journalism programs.
As was seen in the responses, those newspaper people who
had not maintained closer relationships with journalism
schools and educators were more likely to express negative
views of those schools' performance. Therefore, it is
recommended a study be conducted where educators and
newspaper professionals share ideas and opinions about how
to build a mutually beneficial relationship.

How this activity might be conducted is this:
Members of both groups could be questioned for their
beliefs and opinions on whether it is necessary they are
familiar with the other groups. Responses could also be
elicited as to ways familiarity between the groups should
be developed and improved, and as to how both groups can
work to better accommodate productive interactions with
each other. As things currently stand, based on the data
collected and the general tone of the open-ended responses
to questions, there does not appear to be an overriding
impetus for a majority of Michigan newspaper professionals
or journalism educators to build a stronger working
relationship with one another. Given this, it may be
worthwhile to work toward creating a mechanism (perhaps a

study, or even a common-interest form of sorts with

94
members from Michigan's journalism education and newspaper
communities) to help these individuals work more closely
together. It is apparent that any method aimed at
strengthening the ties between the journalism educators
and newspaper professionals in Michigan should not only be
recommended but also vigorously pursued. Such a mechanism
would be particularly valuable if it delved into actual
processes by which both groups believe this interaction
between them should be carried out. In turn, the results
of any "cross—pollination" between the educators and
newspaper people could then be widely shared across the
state as a starting point for creating a more constructive
atmosphere in which both professions work toward common
goals. Unfortunately, as this study has revealed, such a
goal is not close at hand--and probably will not exist for
some time unless some thawing takes place among factions
of the state's university journalism programs and
newspaper industry.

Based on this study, it must be generally assumed
that weekly newspaper professionals across Michigan
interact with journalism educators on a less frequent
basis than do professionals with the state's daily
newspapers. This lack of interaction spills over into
weekly newspaper professionals' attitudes toward
journalism educators, journalism students, and the entire

educational process.

95
A reasonable explanation for this development could very
possibly focus on journalism schools' lack of
orientation toward the weekly newspaper industry. Since
weekly newspaper professionals in Michigan are apparently
more often dissatisfied with journalism schools' training
of students, it stands to reason one primary cause of this
development could be that the needs of weekly newspapers
are not being filled by students who are graduating from
journalism programs. Newspaper training, as was pointed
out, has declined as an emphasis in many journalism
schools' curriculum, and most of the newspaper—oriented
education that does exist would seem to be aimed at
readying students for work on dailies while weeklies are
largely ignored.

Where this leaves the weekly newspaper community is
plain to see. Of course, some of the education a student
receives in journalism school is appropriate for the world
of weekly newspapers. However, there would appear to be
an unsettling sentiment among the state's weekly newspaper
professionals that a definite void exists; from their
point of view, the pervasive education that provides the
all-around grounding required for weekly staff members is
lacking from today's university journalism programs.

These newspapers, hence, are turning their hiring
attention to other venues when seeking out news-editorial

talent. This signifies an entire segment of an industry

96
which should benefit from its relationship with journalism
education is not finding this to be the case. It is a
situation that should alarm journalism educators in
Michigan and cause them to re-examine their priorities to
some extent.

Additionally, this development is one that lends
itself to some well-warranted and potentiall telling
possibilities for further study. First, there is need for
an in-depth study dealing specifically with the concerns
and expectations of weekly newspaper professionals in
Michigan--as well as weekly professionals nationwide, for
that matter. No studies of this nature have been
conducted in Michigan, and relatively few analyses of the
educational needs of weekly or "community" newspapers
across the United States currently exist. While the
questionnaire used in this study allowed all respondents--
weekly and daily newspaper professionals and journalism
educators alike--to voice their sentiments on the
journalism educator-newspaper professional relationship,
it was not designed to specifically capture measurable
results that focused on one particular segment of those
groups. Because of this broad focus, there remains an
extensive opportunity for designing a study revealing the
backgrounds of Michigan's weekly newspaper professionals
and providing an accurate and thorough assessment of their

requirements.

97

Based on the unabashed comments offered by many
respondents, weekly newspaper professionals throughout
Michigan are deeply concerned about the education they
view as necessary to prepare would-be weekly journalists,
and they would welcome the chance to be the subject of
such a study. For instance, one weekly editor offered
this reply to an open-ended question that asked what
journalism education lacks in properly preparing students
for work on newspapers: "More emphasis should be placed
on small-town newspaper needs, such as covering high
school sports, county zoning laws, court procedures, and
environmental issues."

Numerous other responses echoed this editor's
feelings: indeed, weekly newspaper people seem to feel
their profession is largely unrecognized by journalism
students. Some reasons for this lack of recognition have
been noted--small-town work locations, lack of prestige,
limited salary opportunities, hard working conditions. By
the same token, though, it is also possible students are
not greatly exposed to the possibilities of working in
community journalism-type positions. And those few
students who do venture toward the world of small
newspapers are ill-prepared to succeed, according to those
who do the hiring. In any event, a wedge has been driven
between Michigan's weekly newspaper community and the

state's journalism educators at the university level.

98
This relationship signals a need for closer scrutiny of
the state's weekly newspapers and of others who are
responsible for the future of this industry.

In addition to obtaining a more all-encompassing
understanding of the requirements of the weekly newspaper
industry, another study that may be recommended to better
discover the cause of problems in this area would involve
journalism educators. This study would focus on why
community newspapers (weeklies and smaller dailies) do not
receive the emphasis some people believe they deserve.
Such a study would be made up of specific questions to
substantiate, from the educators' point of view, why the
educational spotlight has shifted away from smaller
newspapers.

To capsulize the study findings, throughout this
attempt to highlight indicators of the relationship
between journalism educators and newspaper professionals
in Michigan, and the impact that those indicators have on
the success or failure of those relationships, the
responses to the queries posed have yielded some
identifiable trends as to the manner in which these groups
perceive one another. Type of workplace (particularly
weekly, small daily, or large daily newspaper), years in a
particular field, amount of interaction with members of
the other profession: All are variables that, according

to the data gathered, seemingly play an important role in

99
sculpting the relationships between newspaper
professionals and journalism educators in the state. If
this is the case, then these findings should be taken into
full account and consciously adapted to by members of both
groups if they intend to construct a more beneficial
interaction.

Besides being aware of the indicators involved in the
relationships between these groups, what is also essential
is realizing that each person's feelings about and
opinions toward the other group are on an ever-changing
continuum. This continuum is such that every interaction
a person has with the other group-~and every related
experience he or she undergoes with someone from that
group--has an impact on his or her perceptions toward that
group, its members' expertise, and the work that those
members perform. These experiences are continuously
evolving and gradually affecting--be it positively or
negatively--the manner in which the entire group is
perceived. This phenomenon, in turn, becomes externalized
in attitudes and actions (or lack of actions) toward that
group. For newspaper professionals, this could mean not
seeking to hire journalism graduates: for journalism
educators, it could mean not tailoring their curriculum
toward a segment of the communications world.

Because of this ever-evolving set of circumstances,

it can be concluded that the variables disclosed in

100

deciphering the status of the relationship between
journalism educators and newspaper professionals in
Michigan are in some way positively correlated. This
means when a certain circumstance (or set of
circumstances) exists-~for example, a newspaper
professional has been in that job for, say, twenty years
and very rarely interacts with journalism educators--it
will more likely have some correlation with that
individual's perceptions toward journalism education. In
this example, the professional's years of service and lack
of interaction with journalism education could possibly
correlate with a negative perception of journalism
educators, students, and the entire journalism educational
process. Based on the findings of the study, a similar
generalization can be arrived at for weekly newspaper
professionals, who on the whole seem to interact less
frequently with journalism educators and, therefore, may
be more likely to have unfavorable perceptions of
university-level journalism education. This perception
and others ultimately may be reflected in a lack of hiring
of journalism students and perhaps a breakdown of
relations between certain individuals in the industry and
journalism educators.

Similar correlations can be found between the other
variables that have been previously discussed in arriving

at a more concise understanding of the relationship

101

between Michigan's journalism educators and newspaper
professionals. A thought that must be emphasized, though,
is that all of these factors mesh together--in both
professional and social settings--with other stimuli to
result in positive, negative, or indifferent perceptions
that educators and newspaper professionals have of one
another. As in all relationships, there is no way the
perceptions, feelings, opinions, and attitudes can be
manipulated: they simply exist as they are, constantly
subjected to the relevant experiences that one undergoes.

However, a clearer picture of the possible causes and
effects of the Michigan newspaper professional-journalism
educator relationship was painted thanks to this study,
and this alone gives members of both fields a foundation
from which they may wish to build upon in future dealings.
It should be noted, in addition, that this study yielded
more conclusive findings about Michigan newspaper
professionals' perceptions of and attitudes toward
journalism educators and the relationship between the two
groups than it did of journalism educators perceptions'
and attitudes. The major thrust of the statistically
significant data was gained from the population of those
Michigan newspaper professionals who responded to the
questionnaire. This occurred primarily because the number
of respondents from that group was large enough to produce

results that not only said something concrete and valuable

102
about the relationship between journalism educators and
newspaper professionals, but the findings were also
statistically sound. Because of this experience, it
should be kept in mind by those conducting further studies
of these professions within a particular state that a high
questionnaire return rate--or a large enough population
which to survey--is required in order to produce results Is
that will be acceptable on a widespread basis.

As a final footnote, based on the findings presented 1

 

from the study, an assessment that deserves to be provided
is despite the many problems respondents claim exist
between newspaper professionals and journalism educators
in Michigan, there still remains great interest among both
groups in maintaining ties and building a more viable
relationship. Michigan's journalism educators,
notwithstanding the already noted decline in student
interest in newspapers as a career path, continue to place
emphasis on news-editorial training in their curricula.
Some schools do this far more than others, but newspapers
surely are still a primary focus of training for
journalism educators. At the same time, the state's
newspaper professionals, although alluding to many
deficiencies with journalism schools, educators, and
students, continue to be concerned with the welfare of the
state's journalism institutions. They seem to recognize

that regardless of the many shortcomings of journalism

103
schools, these schools remain a sought-after method for
preparing students for work in the media. Newspaper
professionals, the study found, are still largely aware of
the value of a journalism degree at a reputable university
and of what that degree--can mean to a news organization.

Still, this relationship between the state's
newspaper people and journalism educators cannot be taken
for granted. As shown by the responses to the
questionnaire, instances have taken place where newspaper
professionals are bypassing journalism schools when hiring
employees--even for entry-level positions. Plus, many
newspaper people (especially among the weekly newspaper
community) are becoming more and more remote from
journalism schools. Many newspaper people will argue that
the same can be said of journalism educators when it comes
to the extent of their interactions with practicing
journalists. At any rate, the mere interest level among
respondents to this study's questionnaire indicates there
is concern over problems that have beset the relations
between these groups and the direction which future
interactions should follow.

Some might say it is not essential there be a
constructive working relationship between educators and
newspaper people. But, as more than one respondent
advocated, it should be in the interest of educators and

newspaper professionals (and, ultimately, students) that

104
regular contact between the two groups be sustained. This
conclusive statement must be re-emphasized and, more
importantly, acted upon.

Consider this sampling of statements from survey
respondents: "Why not call groups of publishers in for
annual discussions about the state of journalism and
journalism education?" "I suggest contact be made by a J-
school with a nearby small and large daily and a weekly
newspaper to discuss what newspaper management is looking
for in J-school graduates." "Have faculty members meet
with representatives of all sectors of the profession--
weeklies as well as dailies--since weeklies do offer the
majority of entry-level jobs." "Department heads should
meet periodically with publishers and news executives from
all sizes of newspapers."

Comments such as these stand on their own merit.
There is obvious interest on the part of Michigan
educators and newspaper professionals in building on the
foundation that constitutes their relationship. It should
behoove both professions to recognize that interest in
cultivating and improving their relations remains a
priority among many of their associates. Now that some
indicators of these relationships have been brought into
the open, both groups should challenge themselves to use
this information and to foster improvements. When and if

this occurs, the actions should provide encouraging

105
results--for newspapers, educators, students, and readers
of newspapers across the state. Should greater
cooperation not take place, however, the result could very
likely be a further deterioration of a relationship that
is already on shaky ground. For the welfare of all
Michigan residents, the charge is readily apparent: Seek
out ways to work together, educators and newspaper

professionals, and positive trends can develop.

BI BLI OGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Backstrom, Charles H., and Hursh-Cesar, Gerald. Survey
Research, second ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981.

Becker, Lee 8., Fruit, Jeffrey W., Caudill, Susan L., and
Blood, R. Warwick. "The Development of Professional
Values of Journalists." Paper presented to the Theory
and Methodology Division of the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication,
Gainesville, Fla., August 1984.

Becker, Lee. B, Sobowale, Idowu A., and Cobbey, Robin E.
"Reporters and their Professional and Organizational

Commitment." Journalism Quarperly 56 (1979):753-63, 770.

Berkman, Dave. "Student Quality Fall Affects J-Schools."
Journalism Educator, Winter 1985, pp. 33-37.

Bourland, Pamela. "A Survey of Arkansas's Editors' and PR
Practitioners' Attitudes Toward Their Relationship."
Journalism Abstracts, 1982, 20:36.

Bowers, Thomas A. "Student Attitudes Toward Journalism as a
Major and a Career." Journalism Quarterly 51 (Summer
1974):265-70.

Brown, Robert U. "Don't Lobotomize My Kids." Egitor &
Publisher, 29 November 1980, p. 40.

Burgoon, Judee K., Burgoon, Michael, and Atkin, Charles K.
Report on working journalists conducted for the
American Society of Newspaper Editors, East Lansing,
Mich., May 1982.

Carey, James W. "A Plea for the University Tradition."
Journalism Quarperly 55 (Winter 1978): 846-55.

Carter, Roy E., Jr. "Field Methods in Communication

Research." In introduction to Mass Communications
Easeargn, pp. 78-121. Edited by Ralph O. Nafziger and

David M. White. Baton Rouge, La.: Louisiana State
University Press, 1963.

106

107

Christians, Clifford G., and Covert, Catherine L. Teaching
Ethigs in Journalism Education, New York: The Hasting
Center Institute of Society, Ethics, and the Life
Sciences, 1980.

DeMott, John. "We're Doing a Better Job Than Ever." The
Quill, September 1975, pp. 16-19.

Dorfman, Ron. "A New Deal for Journalism Education." The
Quill, February 1984, pp. 17-19.

Duncan, Charles W. "Accreditation Issues Debated at 1983
AEJMC Convention: The Historical Perspective."

qurnalism Educator, Winter 1984, pp. 3-8.

Edwards, Kenneth. "Teaching Writing Skills." Editor &
Publisher, 2 April 1983, p. 36.

Einstoss, Ronald H. "You're Still Short of the Mark." The
Quill, September 1975, pp. 20-22, 24.

Fedler, Fred, and Taylor, Phillip. "Does Journalism Attract

Quality Students?" Journalism Quarrarly 53 (1976):522-
27.

Fowler, Gilbert L., Jr. "Community Journalism Program
Responds to Specific Needs of State's Weekly Press."
Journalism Educator, Winter 1983, pp. 39-41.

Gaddis, Haskell 0. "Journalism Career Preparation: Opinions
of Selected Newspaper Editors Versus Those of Heads 0
ACEJ-Accredited News-Editorial Journalism Sequences."

Journalism Abstragp . 1980, 18:11.

Gaddis, Woody. "Editors, Educators Agree on Many Key J-

Education Issues. qur nalism Eaugapor, July 1981, pp.
26,46.

Goode, William J., and Hatt, Paul K. M thods 'n oc al
Researcn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1952.

Gordon, Gregory. "A Status of Journalism Education and Mass
Media Communication Education in Michigan Secondary

Schools." Jgurnalism Epsrracts, 1973, 11:113.

Haroldsen, Edwin G., and Harvey, Kenneth E. "Frowns Greet New
J-Grads in Magazine Job Market." Jgurnalism Educatpr,
July 1979, pp. 3-8, 26.

Hasse, Edmund, and Shaheen, Jack. "New Internships Erase

Skepticism Among Media Pros." Journalism Educaror,
October 1972, pp. 13-15.

108

Hornby, William H. "Editor Calls on J-Educators to be

Inspirational, Critical." qurnali§n_Egugargr, October
1973, pp. 6-7, 38.

Hulteng, John L. ~The J-Graduate--How Well Prepared:
Educators and Editors Don't See Eye to Eye." The Quill,
April 1972, p. 16.

Johnson, James. "The Value of a J-School Degree." Egitor &
Publianar, 12 February 1983, p. 44.

Johnstone, John W.C., Slawski, Edward J., and Bowman, William
W. e News eo le: S 'o ' P rt a' f erican

Journalists and Iheir Wgrg. Urbana, 111.: University of
Illinois Press, 1976.

Joseph, Ted. "The Need For Dialogue: We Might Try Harder."
Jgurnalisn Educatpr, Spring 1983, pp. 56-57.

Krieghbaum, Hillier. "J-School Training Criticized in ANPA-

AEJ 'Rap' Sessions.“ Egippr & Euglisner, 10 November
1973, pp. 13-, 72.

Lawhorne, Clifton 0. "Editors of Smaller Newspapers See

Weaknesses in J-Education." Journalian Educaror, April
1976, pp. 3-6, 60.

Lindley, William R. "Journalism Studies: Search of a
Science." Nieman Reports, Winter 1983, pp. 41-42.

McLeod, Jack M., and Hawley, Searle E., Jr.
"Professionalization Among Newsmen." Journalism

Quarrarly 41 (1964): 529-39.

Mencher, Melvin. "Agenda for Journalism Education." Nieman
Re orts, Autumn 1982, pp. 47-48.

Merrill, John C. "Upside Down: Another Look at a J-Education
First Proposed in 1975--But Now with Modifications."
Jour al'sm Educat , July 1980, pp. 20-22.

Mills, Gordon, Harvey, Kenneth, and Warnick, Leland B.
"Newspaper Editors Point to J-Grad Deficiencies."
Journalism Educator, July 1980, pp. 12-19.

Mokrycki, Michael, "Provisional Accreditation Rejected by

Boston University." Egirpr_a_£upli§nar, 12 February
1983, p. 14.

National Conference of Editorial Writers Journalism Education
Committee. "Editorial Writers Propose Changes

in J-Education." Journalisn Educapor, April 1977, pp. 4-
5, 152.

109

Nickless, Judith. "Journalism Instruction and Activity in

Michigan Public Community Colleges." ou sm
apsrracts, 1964, 2:115.
Norton, Edward C. "Journalism: Taught or Caught?" ema

Bapgrra, Winter/Spring 1978, pp. 28-30.

Norton, Wayne A. "A Comparative Study of Journalism Education
at the Undergraduate Level in Ohio." Journalism
Epstracts, 1964, 2:115.

Peterson, Paul V. "Survey Indicates No Change in '83

Journalism Enrollment." qurnali§m_Egugapgr, Spring
1984, pp. 3-7.

Powell, Fredric A. "Training Students More Realistically

Through a Work-Setting Approach." Journalism Egucapor,
Spring 1983, pp. 52-555, 57.

Reddick, DeWitt C. "From A Variety of Voices, A Myriad of

Grays: Introduction." Ihe Quill, September 1975, pp. 13-
15.

Roepke, William J. "Educators Ponder Shifts in Student
Career Goals." Journalism Educatpr, October 1981, pp. 3,

6.

Roosenraad, Jon, and Wares, Donna. "Academics vs.
Experience." Journalism Egugatpr, Summer 1983, pp. 17-
18, 30.

Ruffner, Michael. "An Empirical Approach for the Assessment

of Journalistic Writing." qurnali§m_Quarparly 58
(1981):?7-78.

Sitton, Claude. "Accreditation Issues Debated at 1983 AEJMC
Convention: An Editor's Perspective." Journalism
Egugarpr, Winter 1984, p. 9.

Stone, Gerald C. "Survey Reflects Disagreement on 25 Percent

Accrediting Rule." qurnaliamLEgugappr, Winter 1984, pp.
13-16.

Talevich, Tim. "Liberal Arts Tradition Backed at J-Education
Summit." Eraaapima, February 1984, pp. 38-39.

Tebbel, John. "Can Journalism Schools Improve the Press?" In
eadin s i Mass 0 un at'o : once ts and ssues in
pne Mass Media, pp. 369-73. Edited by Michael C. Emery
and Ted Curtis Smyth. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown
Company Publisheres, 1972.

Trayes, Ed. "Degree is Requirement for Hiring Beginning

110

Newsmen on About Half of Newspaper." Journalism

Edusater. 1970. pp- 4-7-

Watkins, Beverly T. "Many Journalism Schools at Universities
Reported to be Nearly stagnant. '" Iha cnronicle of

Hig_er_Edusetien. 5 July 1984 p 9-

Williams, Herbert Lee. "Which Are The Toughest J-Courses to
Teach . . . And Why?" J u nal's Educator, Winter 1983,
pp. 12-14.

Wilson, Quintus C. "Community Journalism Makes Curriculum
Gains." Journalism Educator, January 1979, pp. 9-13.

Wirt, Wilma Hudnall. "National Performance of College
Journalism Students on the Independent Study in Grammar

Tests." Journalism Abstracrs, 1978, 16:113.