Discussing JMC with… Dr. Erik Collins
Inspired by the series on social media by Danny Brown, “Discussing JMC with…” features a collection of interviews with academics from across the U.S. and abroad discussing current topics and trends in journalism and mass communication.
Dr. Erik Collins is the Associate Director for Graduate Studies and Research at the University of South Carolina in Columbia. A native of New York, Collins previously served as a senior public relations manager for major corporations including Miller Brewing Company and Philip Morris and taught at Syracuse and Ohio State universities.
How do you define mass communication?
One might, I suppose, define the term by focusing on technology. Let me define it in terms of my idea of its function. Mass Communication is the purposeful intent to communicate information that aids the functioning of individuals in a capitalistic, democratic society through multiple communication channels.
How do you keep your students excited about working in the field of communications in light of shrinking job opportunities?
Strangely enough, students seem to need no motivating force. With their eyes wide open, they are still enthusiastic about careers in mass media even though what exactly those careers will be is, at best, indeterminate.
What changes do journalism and mass communication programs need to make in order to stay relevant today?
They need to figure out a way to get back to the basics that separate true journalism and mass communication from idle chatter and/or fixation on “new” technology. In short, they need to stop being buffeted by the fickle winds emanating from new media gurus and/or Chicken Little pessimists. Students need to be made aware of, if not proficient in, new communication technology (although I would not be surprised to find that they are already ahead of the curve), but it is a loser’s game, in my opinion, to make that a central focus of a journalism/mass communication program.
If you could save one journalism and mass communication course from extinction, what would it be and why?
Thought long and hard about this and it has to be media law and ethics. Almost everything else could be obtained elsewhere in the university or on the job. Knowledge of media law and ethics is clearly one of the great defining factors in separating mass communications professionals from hoi polloi communicators.
What new media tools or applications do you incorporate in your teaching? Why these in particular?
It has to be understood that I generally teach substantive courses, but the actual answer is none whatsoever. In fact, new media technologies are banned from the classroom in favor of that old-fashioned faculty member on one side of the log and student on the other. When it is announced that there will be no Twittering, blogging, texting, e-mailing, Internet searching, PowerPointing or other “-ing” in this course, invariably, with the exception of the scowling student in the back who suddenly realizes that he actually will have to pay attention in this class, the students erupt into cheers and applause. Students today are perfectly capable of supplementing the classroom experience through use of new media tools on their own.
If you could offer a piece of advice to both your fellow educators and media professionals in the field, what would it be?
It would be a two-edged bit of advice. To fellow educators, remember that this is a profession and that at least some of their efforts ought to be aimed at solving problems and/or advancing knowledge for the professional community. The professionals need to recognize that now, more than ever, they need to support the efforts of the academic community to achieve a partnership to solve the raft of problems facing the profession.
What do you see for the future of journalism and mass communication both in general and in higher education?
Candidly, and unfortunately, from my perspective, I don’t believe either is headed in the right direction. There is a startling incompetence in the management of traditional media, exemplified everyday by lamentations about the decline of newspapers and the fragmentation of advertising. Why in the world Google is not APoogle or Craigslist is not NYTimeslist is almost beyond comprehension. And that the mass media, long ago, did not figure out a way to stop giving away their product for free is mind-boggling. As for journalism and mass communication education, the concept that it should function as a professional school, similar to law, medicine or engineering seems to be disappearing in favor of turning journalism and mass communication education into a social science oriented academic discipline. Rather than focusing research efforts on advancing knowledge to aid the profession (e.g., creating a workable business model for online journalism), many academics today apparently could care less about what is happening in the professional world in the sense of trying to solve the problems it faces. What an ideal world it would be, from my perspective, if all the media professionals were as eager to get their hands on Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly or the Journal of Public Relations Research, as physicians are to receive their copy of JAMA.
- You can find more “Discussing JMC with…” interviews here.
I couldn’t disagree more. Media law is for lawyers. No media company cares a whit how educated its employees are about media law, because they already retain the services of a Washington lawyer. I learned this by experience (15 years in TV). I specialized in FCC law in college but no supervisor could take the risk that I really knew the law so every question had to be vetted with expensive Washington attorneys, leading me to wonder why anyone is forced to learn law unless they intend to be a lawyer.
As a professor, I am aware that no textbook on any topic can be published or adopted without a requisite chapter on ethics. So students learn ethics in EVERY course and I know for a fact that they are sick of the overemphasis on ethics.
As for new media, why not focus on what things might become, rather than what some dinosaur-with-a-1950-bowtie thinks?
Dave is right when he says that most media companies turn to lawyers to answer their legal questions. First, however, an issue has to be identified as one that is a legal concern that needs to go to a lawyer, and that’s one of many reasons that some acquaintance with media law is important. The reason some of the most famous libel cases involving news media were filed is that the journalists involved didn’t recognize that what they were writing might run afoul of libel law. In addition, students in media law courses don’t only learn how to spot legal problems; they also learn about courts and the U.S. system of jurisprudence. I’ve been stunned, for example, over the years by the number of students who, upon entering a media law course, didn’t know the difference between federal and state courts or civil and criminal charges. That’s basic civics knowledge students need to be average citizens, not to mention journalists.
You don’t need a 15-week semester to explain libel. The fact is, too many professors like to teach law, so — guess what — students get stuck learning law.
You’re teaching journalism? Really??
Hope I never see any of your students in any of my newsrooms. I’d like the young people who come into my newsrooms have some idea of what’s going on in the 21st century.
You are a scary man…living in a time long, long past.
God help your students. They will need it.
In the first place, posts without a name attached have no credibility.
But in response to Dave:
Dave’s career in TV journalism must not have included real news.
To say that media companies don’t want their reporters, editors and producers to know about media law is one of the most ridiculous statements I’ve ever heard.
Sure they have lawyers, but journalists need to know when to call them and when a red-flag needs to come up in warning.
We at the S.C. Press Association are called by management regularly to do libel seminars at newspapers across the state. Corporate lawyers also do these training seminars. I’d call that a commitment.
P.S. I wear a bowtie often…they might make a clip-on one Dave could manage. It might match his polyester shirt and pants. (Sorry, I had to respond to his fashion comment …which is as uninformed as his legal comments.)
Dave and eric (sic), have you taken the time to look around your newsrooms? If so, you might notice that there are a lot of empty desks and cubicles around you. It is not a very well-kept secret that traditional media structures are disintegrating because of, in part at least, some shockingly poor (as Dr. Collins points out) long-term strategy decisions by newspaper and broadcast companies.
As media and newsgathering continue to decentralize and journalism as a profession becomes more amorphous, “journalists” (whatever that term now means or will mean in 10 years) will be required to become increasingly self-reliant. Part of this self-reliance will necessarily require a working knowledge of media and intellectual property law. The average blogger or webmaster doesn’t have a D.C. lawyer to fall back on; these folks have to look to themselves for answers, and they are setting themselves up for civil, and possibly even criminal, liability if they do not take this responsibility seriously.
Dr. Collins’ responses reflect the reality that many of the basic skills required to be a media content producer are learned prior to college or on the job (e.g., my guess is that most aspiring reporters knew how to write at least passingly well before entering college; additionally, the average art student, under the tutelage of a page editor, can become proficient in design in a relatively short period of time). One area of knowledge that ISN’T generally picked up in such fashion is law. Lacking such knowledge, especially in our litigious society, is akin to handing a loaded pistol to a three-year-old (perhaps an especially apt analogy considering the tenor of your comments) and telling the kid to figure it out for himself.
“As for new media, why not focus on what things might become.” Dave, you’re a genius. Before you make such comments, though, you might want to actually read Dr. Collins’ responses and think about how he might’ve been doing just that.
One final note to Eric regarding “what’s going on in the 21st century.” I assume that this is in response to Dr. Collins’ statement that he doesn’t opt for a high-tech classroom. You are conflating course content with teaching pedagogy. As a former educator, I can assure you that classrooms often suffer from over-reliance on bells and whistles to hide a gross lack of substance. A gentle suggestion: you might want to take a few moments to do a little bit of research on the professor you are mocking… the thousands of students who have passed through his classes might beg to differ with your uninformed assessment of his methods.