IT IS CRITICAL THAT ALL CITIZENS PRESS THE MEDIA FOR FAIR AND BALANCED COVERAGE IN THESE DAYS OF CORPORATE CONTROL. YOU WATCH THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ON MAINSTREAM TV AND YOU GET NOTHING THAT HOLDS THESE GUYS ACCOUNTABLE TO ISSUES CRITICAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, SIMPLY A BANTERING OF TALKING POINTS. THIS IS NOT FREE PRESS AND IS NOT DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.
IF YOUR INCUMBENT ISN'T SHOUTING LOUDLY AGAINST THIS CAPTURE.....IF THEY ARE USING IT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE, THEN THEY ARE NOT WORKING FOR THE MIDDLE/LOWER CLASSES!
VOTE YOUR INCUMBENT OUT!
I questioned you a few months back about providing a free and open dialog on WYPR's website that is representative of a public media station. I voiced a concern about your removing the ability to comment directly onsite as you transitioned to Facebook commenting. What this does, as you know, is limit who sees the comments and who makes the comments as people know Facebook postings are permanent. This is an anathema to public media! So we want to work to make WYPR work for a people-friendly format. The ability to post right to your website, as is done with NPR et al, would provide a democratic dialogue for which public media was designed.
For example, I post to your Facebook connection and I see all my comments all the time. When my friends use their Facebook accounts, they don't see my comments. As a message I received from WYPR earlier said........your messages will be sent to spam. Now, I am a professional researcher and academic and write nationally on a wide variety of topics, so my comments on WYPR are certainly accurate 99.9% of the time.
You seem to be able to provide a platform for politicians to give interviews that focus on what they see as accomplishments while giving no ability to the public to state concerns or counterpoints. Now, you told me that WYPR has to remove most of the comments it receives because of profanity and vulgarity, but I assure you I don't fit either category. As a public station you are required to provide a fair and balanced democratic platform for the audience and I'm letting you know that you are failing in that respect.
Please let me know how this may be corrected!
ALONG WITH CORPORATIZATION OF UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES AND CURRICULUM COMES AN EFFORT TO TAKE THE PROGRESSIVE/LIBERAL OUT OF THE MEDIA. AS WE SEE MBAs AS UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS, SO THESE EDUCATION REFORMERS ARE TRYING TO DECONSTRUCT JOURNALISM FROM THE SOURCE......THROUGH ACADEMIC CLASSROOMS. THEY ARE DOING THE SAME FOR EDUCATION CLASSROOMS AS WELL AS THEY TEACH FUTURE TEACHERS TO LIKE THE MARKET APPROACH TO K-12. LOOK AT THE FOUNDATIONS BELOW TO SEE HOW THE USING PRIVATE NON-PROFIT DONATIONS TO PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES DRIVES CURRICULUM AND STAFFING. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS AS STATE FUNDING FOR UNIVERSITIES IS REPLACED BY CORPORATE DONATION. THIS IS WHAT THE 'GIFTING' AND B CORPORATION FORMAT IS DESIGNED TO DO. MARYLAND AND BALTIMORE ARE GROUND ZERO FOR THIS DEFUNDING OF PUBLIC FINANCING WITH REPLACEMENT BY PRIVATE.
IF YOUR INCUMBENT IS ALLOWING THIS RESTRUCTURING OF JOURNALISM FROM FAIR, BALANCED, AND UNBIASED WITH A DUTY TOWARDS FREE SPEECH AND PUBLIC INTEREST.......THEY ARE NOT WORKING FOR THE MIDDLE/LOWER CLASS
VOTE YOUR INCUMBENT OUT!!!!
UNIVERSITIES ARE SLOW TO ADOPT THIS CORPORATE APPROACH BUT THE PRESSURE IS ENORMOUS. YOU MUST SHOUT LOUDLY AT YOUR INCUMBENT THAT YOU WANT CORPORATIONS OUT OF YOUR EDUCATION!!!!
I had to respond to the Open Letter you signed intended for journalism schools. I want you to know that the American people are deeply disturbed by the mainstream media capture today.....these professional journalists of which you speak are simply corporate talking heads.....no one respects them. So to suggest that these people mentor and somehow have something to teach future journalists is an insult to the American people. We want our journalism graduates, like all academic disciplines, to be free of corporate influence as this influence stifles free thought and creative growth.....both very important to a democracy and both of which is currently missing from mainstream journalism. Just look at what has happened to NPR to see a disturbing corporate drive to take a stellar news program and turn it into a mediocre version of CNN and a few of these very foundations are sponsors to NPR. They are often located in conservative/corporate states.
Please stop this approach!
Yesterday's News August 6, 2012 - 3:00am By Kaustuv Basu
A group of foundations that support journalism education issued a letter Friday saying that top professionals in the field, not career academics, need to be doing much more of the teaching of journalism students.
As digital media have evolved, so have journalism programs. But the open letter criticized them for not changing quickly enough.
“We believe journalism and communications schools must be willing to recreate themselves if they are able to succeed in playing their vital roles as news creators and innovators. Some leading schools are doing this but most are not,” said the letter addressed to university presidents, and signed by senior officials of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Robert R. McCormick Foundation, the Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation, the Scripps Howard Foundation, the Brett Family Foundation and the Wyncote Foundation.
The letter said that the “teaching hospital” model – where programs not only teach journalism students, but serve their local communities by producing news – has enormous potential. One example of this model is Arizona State University, which houses News 21, an initiative by the Knight Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York to train a new generation of journalists. The initiative began in 2005 with five programs in the country.
But programs taking part in such initiatives may be the exception.
Eric Newton, senior adviser at the Knight Foundation, said that many journalism schools still teach analog broadcasts and treat newspaper, magazine, radio and television as separate components of a program.
“Students cannot be taught in silos such as print, radio, TV or magazine. There are still journalism programs where there is no experiential or service learning involved,” Newton said. As for journalism faculty members from the “pre-web” days, they need to constantly update their skills, maybe even indulge in “reverse mentoring” and learn about digital media from their students, Newton said.
“If you are in a recession, and you decide to cut the school’s website instead of the newspaper, then that is a problem. The schools should be willing to give up the things that should be given up,” Newton said. “We know that most jobs in journalism now involve digital media. These programs should change like society has changed. If you continue to teach things from the 1980s, you are going to become irrelevant."
He said the main purpose of the letter was to call attention to these problems and to point out that there is a tremendous opportunity for those programs that want to make the transition. Those that don’t, Newton said, will find that their graduates are unemployable in the mass communications industry.
According to Newton, four broad areas in journalism education need change: curricular innovation with programs better-connected with the rest of the university, technological innovations with programs serving as incubators, the teaching of an open collaborative model where schools can share resources with outside organizations, and providing content to the community while engaging in a two-way conversation with its members.
There are some journalism schools that are committed to these areas, where students learn by “doing,” Newton said.
Some examples: The City University of New York has an entrepreneurial journalism program that encourages student innovation by partnering with start-ups or traditional media companies, while Mercer University in Macon, Ga., has teamed up with the The Telegraph, a daily newspaper, and Georgia Public Broadcasting for a collaborative journalism center. Columbia University’s journalism school started a digital project called The New York World last year to provide accountability journalism about state and local government, while journalism students at three public universities in Ohio – University of Akron, Youngstown State University, and Kent State University – have been producing news for regional and statewide media through a partnership called The News Outlet.
Administrators at journalism and mass communication schools said they understand the frustrations of the foundations, but they also said programs are trying hard to keep up with changes in digital technology.
Beth Barnes, director of the school of journalism and telecommunications at the University of Kentucky and president of the Association of Schools of Journalism and Mass Communication, said that programs can't always change quickly. “We have to weigh in the cost factor, and the challenge for faculty to keep up with these changes,” she said.
Regional accrediting bodies have certain expectations about academic faculty, and their rules don’t make it easy to hire faculty members from professional institutions, she said. “Sometimes we have to make the case to administrators to hire someone who doesn’t have a terminal degree, but has current professional experience,” she said.
The letter urged programs to challenge such roadblocks from regional accreditors and suggested that "competence as the primary concern" for faculty in these programs. If they don't, they would have a hard time raising money from the foundations, the letter said.
Barnes said most j-schools are trying to change. “The changes may not happen quickly, but they [the foundations] should keep pushing us,” she said. “It keeps us honest and gives us some leverage we can use on our own campuses."
She said that the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications, which is currently reviewing changes to accreditation standards, is likely to add more specific requirements, such as multimedia storytelling. “These changes are going to make us more innovative,” Barnes said.
While the letter from the foundations said it supported efforts by the ACEJMC, which accredits 109 journalism and mass communication schools in the United States, to modernize standards, it also suggested that the organization develop standards that highlight the importance of technology and innovation.
Susanne Shaw, ACEJMC’s executive director and a professor of journalism at the University of Kansas, said that one proposed change in standards relates to the number of credit hours a journalism and communications major is required to have outside the major. The previous requirement was 80 credit hours with 65 of those hours coming from the liberal arts and sciences. The proposed new standard would enable 72 credit hours outside the major, but not restricted to the liberal arts and sciences, thus encouraging more collaboration and innovation. “So, for example, those who want to take a business class … we will be able to accommodate those folks,” Shaw said.
Another proposed change in the accrediting standards will let schools offer six hours of credit instead of three for unpaid internships. “Accreditation can only help some of the problems. I also want to help students and faculty get better,” Shaw said. “We are making the changes that the majority of our schools want.”
These proposed changes will be discussed at an ACEJMC meeting later this month, said Shaw, who said the council's members are open to discussing new ideas. Shaw said that the process of revising the standards had been ongoing for a year and a half, while the letter was less than a week old. “The council may want to talk about it. Some people might feel we already address these issues in our standards,” Shaw said, referring to standards for keeping the curriculum “current” and a separate one for equipment and facilities.
She said that the accreditation standards would have to be changed every month if the council were to respond to new technology. “Nothing is perfect. Of course, we are trying to address changes,” Shaw said. Shaw said that the standards already ask for a "current" and "demanding" curriculum and there is a separate standard for resources and equipment.
Susan King, dean of the school of journalism and mass communication at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, can understand the arguments from both sides. King previously was the vice president for external affairs at the Carnegie Corporation of New York and is well-acquainted with the world of funders.
“I agree that it is imperative to prepare the next generation of journalists, and to prepare them [students] for jobs that do not yet exist,” King said. “We have to prepare them for a digital future that might change twice before the end of the decade.”
King said programs have to constantly sharpen their focus and do so without losing their core values, but added that theoretical research is as important as applied research. “Universities have a greater chance to experiment. Businesses cannot experiment as much,” she said.
She said that she expected someone like Eric Newton to be provocative. “There is this myth that journalism professors spend their time telling stories about what they did,” King said, but her experience had been different. “There is a lot of worthwhile innovation going on. The challenge is to attract more schools to do the same. But I don’t think we are your daddy’s journalism school any more,” King said.
The MarylandReporter.com is a good source for what is happening in Annapolis. I do not see any attempt to be investigative; they simply provide information. They are financed by conservative sources so the issues that are chosen may be slanted, but they aren't bad. They would be the go-to for resources and as you see below, even they know of no way for the general public to find out in advance when and where open public meetings across Maryland will occur. IT IS INCREDIBLE THAT THERE IS NO CENTRAL ACCESS SITE ON THE GOVERNMENT'S WEBSITE FOR CURRENT, UPCOMING PUBLIC MEETINGS! THIS IS THE TRANSPARENCY AND CORRUPTION PIECE........WHO ATTENDS THESE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND HOW THEY ARE PORTRAYED AS 'PUBLIC CONSENT' FOR ISSUES THIS MARYLAND ASSEMBLY WANTS TO PUSH FORWARD.
You will notice that only after the fact will you hear on your local news that a public meeting on issues in front of the Public Works or Public Service Commission has taken place.......and almost every time, the groups supporting the issue as the governor or assembly leaders want amass a good crowd while the dissenters have relatively few. WELLLLLL, IT'S BECAUSE NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT THESE MEETINGS IN ADVANCE. UNLESS YOU CHECK EVERY COMMITTEE, AGENCY, OR ORGANIZATION'S WEBPAGE ALL THE TIME, YOU CANNOT BE APART OF THESE PUBLIC MEETING ENFORCE. THIS IS HIGHLY IRREGULAR AND UNDEMOCRATIC.
So, when you see these paltry crowds outside the General Assembly......it has as much to do with one or two organizations having contact with politicians on the issue. I'm not saying that apethetic crowds are a problem, BUT THESE CROWDS MAY BE APETHETIC BECAUSE THEY ARE LEFT OUT OF THE LOOP AT EVERY TURN!
IF YOUR POLITICIAN IS NOT SHOUTING LOUDLY AGAINST THE FAILURE OF THE STATE TO GET INFORMATION OUT ON THESE PUBLIC MEETINGS.....A CUMULATIVE LISTING ON THE GOVERNMENT WEBSITE, PRESS RELEASES THAT LOCAL MEDIA ARE REQUIRED TO BROADCAST WELL BEFORE THE MEETINGS........VOTE THAT INCUMBANT OUT!
BELOW IS THE RESPONSE FROM ONE OF THE BEST SOURCES FOR GOVERNMENT RESOURCES:
You can’t get what you want. You generally have to go to the right site, and know where to look. Sorry. And compiling these while useful would be mighty time consuming.
Check out the General Assembly hearing schedule. They have things other than legislative meetings. http://mlis.state.md.us/2012RS/hearsch/0524_date.htm
Editor and Publisher
How does one get news alerts that tell, in advance when and where public meetings across Maryland will occur? All I can find is the Board's regular meeting schedule.....