We Want Media

When virtually anyone can set up a website and even make a profit, what prestige will a degree from NYU, Columbia, or any other school hold in the future? It is a question of credibility, for one, but also of the value of our educational institutions. What do graduates learn that sets their work apart from the anonymous blogger who may have as much if not more journalistic skills and experience? Where, I wonder, does the diploma rest on the scale of status symbol versus indicative knowledge and talent, and can the diploma do justice to the media’s evolution?

Another profound question with which to annoy my reader: What does it take to be a successful journalist? Is a way with words and a knack at cracking social codes enough? Giving the people what they want? Here is a small collection of various opinions from various (unnamed) people on the subject:

• You don’t need a graduate degree to be a journalist; in fact, you don’t even need an undergraduate degree—simply start from the bottom and use a lethal combination of talent and persistence to work your way up. (The Broadcast Pioneer)

• An undergrad degree in journalism is unnecessary; if you want to be prominent in the field, you better have your sights set on Columbia. (The Professor)

• Just work hard, study hard, and it will pay off in the end. (The Father Figure)

• Situate yourself amongst the people in the field you want to be; making the right connections and using some charm and intrigue will get you where you want to be. (The Film Major)

We all know what “credibility,” “authenticity” and “quality” mean; we all can generally point to sources that possess these characteristics. Yet the common standard of measurement—a respected publication—is no longer the singular medium used to transmit information. Nick Denton describes his intentions with the launch of Gawker as though he were altering the style of the news: "I wanted to publish news and gossip that's analogous to the conversation two journalists would have in the pub. It used to offend me that the best stories you heard were over a drink. The juicy stories that no one dared put into print, or stories that are too trivial to make it into the news." It turns out that people—a lot of people—want to read what two journalists have to say over a pint. We might classify this form of journalism into a different "type" of news, one of a different "quality" as the material on NYTimes.com , but a job at the Times does not seem to be the aspiration of every journalist, anymore, nor does a degree from a prestigious university.

In consulting what Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism had to say about their program , I found it to be eerily contradictory of yours truly:

Joseph Pulitzer founded the School of Journalism in 1912 with the vision that journalists, like lawyers and doctors, should be educated and that a school of journalism should be the standard bearer of this intellectual and practical pursuit.

Concentrations for the M.S. degree include the traditional genres of Broadcast, Magazine, and Newspaper, as well as a more vague category of New Media which appears to be Columbia's attempt at helping its students navigate the world of the web. I don't doubt that Columbia can teach the practice of journalism. I do question their authority on who is qualified in this practice, especially in light of how "new" New Media becomes every day.

Every aspiring journalist, it seems, has his or her own goals, be it for the editorial position of Vogue or the founding of the next online craze. Some matriculate through the most prestigious schools, some start from the bottom, others seem to pop out of nowhere, but most possess the way with words and a firm grip on how to grab people’s attention.

In other words, we all got the cookies. It's up to us whether or not we're going to dip them in the milk. (To prevent this metaphor from failing, let me go ahead and identify the milk as institutionalized education.)