A Belated Submission to the Select Committee on the Future of Public Interest Journalism

Q2 Social Sciences

Asia Pacific Media Educator Pub Date : 2017-10-25 DOI:10.1177/1326365X17728829

J. Vine

{"title":"A Belated Submission to the Select Committee on the Future of Public Interest Journalism","authors":"J. Vine","doi":"10.1177/1326365X17728829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Submissions to this year’s Select Committee on the Future of Public Interest Journalism pointed out that journalism tertiary education—students under the guidance of experienced and well-respected journalism practitioners—is in a position to help revive investigative and civic journalism. As Edith Cowan’s Kayt Davies (2014) pointed out as far back as 2014, public interest journalism practised in tertiary journalism programmes could potentially be funded through bodies such as the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the research grants system. Such revenue sources not only transcend the business model but also exist at a relatively acceptable arm’s length from the government. However, research—journalism or otherwise—is ineligible for ARC funding without academic research ethics committee approval. Unfortunately, the process of applying for approval from a committee, whose terms of reference are guided by an academy-approved, government-developed document (i.e., the National Statement), is so offensive to journalistic ideology that it renders the whole concept of public interest journalism in the university sector untenable. This essay examines the National Statement and draws similarities between its values and beliefs and professional journalism ideology (as articulated by the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), the Australian Press Council, the Dart Centre for Journalism and Trauma and the Hunter Institute for Mental Health). It then explores inbuilt flexibilities in the National Statement that offer journalism as a research methodology, a means of maintaining its independence. It then finishes with an updated survey of how journalism programmes around Australia negotiate the conflict between academic research ethics and professional ideology while engaging in practice-based research. In short, this essay explores options for the revival of public interest journalism that are acceptable to both academy and journalism sensibilities.","PeriodicalId":43557,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Media Educator","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1326365X17728829","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Pacific Media Educator","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1326365X17728829","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Abstract

Submissions to this year’s Select Committee on the Future of Public Interest Journalism pointed out that journalism tertiary education—students under the guidance of experienced and well-respected journalism practitioners—is in a position to help revive investigative and civic journalism. As Edith Cowan’s Kayt Davies (2014) pointed out as far back as 2014, public interest journalism practised in tertiary journalism programmes could potentially be funded through bodies such as the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the research grants system. Such revenue sources not only transcend the business model but also exist at a relatively acceptable arm’s length from the government. However, research—journalism or otherwise—is ineligible for ARC funding without academic research ethics committee approval. Unfortunately, the process of applying for approval from a committee, whose terms of reference are guided by an academy-approved, government-developed document (i.e., the National Statement), is so offensive to journalistic ideology that it renders the whole concept of public interest journalism in the university sector untenable. This essay examines the National Statement and draws similarities between its values and beliefs and professional journalism ideology (as articulated by the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), the Australian Press Council, the Dart Centre for Journalism and Trauma and the Hunter Institute for Mental Health). It then explores inbuilt flexibilities in the National Statement that offer journalism as a research methodology, a means of maintaining its independence. It then finishes with an updated survey of how journalism programmes around Australia negotiate the conflict between academic research ethics and professional ideology while engaging in practice-based research. In short, this essay explores options for the revival of public interest journalism that are acceptable to both academy and journalism sensibilities.

查看原文本刊更多论文

向公共利益新闻的未来专责委员会迟来的意见书

提交给今年公共利益新闻未来特别委员会的意见书指出，新闻高等教育——学生在经验丰富、备受尊敬的新闻从业人员的指导下——可以帮助恢复调查性新闻和公民新闻。正如伊迪丝·考恩(Edith Cowan)的凯特·戴维斯(Kayt Davies, 2014)早在2014年就指出的那样，高等教育新闻学项目中实践的公共利益新闻可能会通过澳大利亚研究委员会(ARC)和研究资助系统等机构获得资助。这样的收入来源不仅超越了商业模式，而且与政府保持着相对可接受的距离。然而，没有学术研究伦理委员会的批准，研究-新闻或其他-是没有资格获得ARC资助的。不幸的是，申请委员会批准的过程，其职权范围是由学院批准的，政府制定的文件(即国家声明)指导，这是对新闻意识形态的冒犯，它使大学部门的整个公共利益新闻概念站不住脚。本文考察了国家声明，并得出其价值观和信仰与专业新闻意识形态之间的相似之处(如媒体娱乐和艺术联盟(MEAA)，澳大利亚新闻委员会，达特新闻和创伤中心以及亨特心理健康研究所所阐述的那样)。然后，它探讨了国家声明中固有的灵活性，这些灵活性为新闻业提供了一种研究方法，一种保持其独立性的手段。然后，它以一项最新的调查结束，调查了澳大利亚各地的新闻项目在从事基于实践的研究时如何协调学术研究伦理和专业意识形态之间的冲突。简而言之，本文探讨了公共利益新闻复兴的选择，这是学术界和新闻敏感性都可以接受的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Asia Pacific Media Educator COMMUNICATION-

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Asia Pacific Media Educator is an international refereed journal published twice a year by SAGE Publications (New Delhi) in collaboration with the School of the Arts, English and Media, Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts, University of Wollongong in Australia. The journal follows international norms and procedures of blind peer reviewing by scholars representing a wide range of multi-disciplinary areas. APME focuses on generating discussions and dialogues among media educators, researchers and journalists. Content ranges from critical commentaries and essays to research reports and papers that contribute to journalism theory development and offer innovative ideas in improving the standard and currency of media reportage, teaching and training specific to the Asia Pacific region. Papers that integrate media theories with applications to professional practice, media training and journalism education are usually selected for peer review. APME also carries a Q&A section with book authors. APME takes conventional book reviews to a more creative level where reviewers directly engage with authors to understand the process that authors take in researching and writing the book, clarify their assumptions and pose critical questions.