UC journalism faculty rift?

c_c said :

I’d honestly like to know what the motivations are for the parties, both to teach and to study journalism?

Isn’t it essentially learning to write stuff you know nothing about and cope with a life publishing media releases as news in under funded newsrooms? Any degree gives you writing skills, it seems journalism manages to do it without giving you anything else like specialist knowledge of a subject you may have to write about. Makes no sense.

In days gone by, when there was no such thing as a journalism degree, you would do a double degree in law and pol sci if you wanted to be a journo. In any case, there are enough jobs going in the journalism field to employ around 1 per cent by number of the journalism grads (but I don’t know if any of the journalism grads would get those handful of jobs; they’d go to the aforementioned law/pol sci grads). I think it’s really just a professional writing degree – based on the writing/grammar standards of some uni grads *these days*, it could be a useful half of a double degree.

I’d honestly like to know what the motivations are for the parties, both to teach and to study journalism?

Isn’t it essentially learning to write stuff you know nothing about and cope with a life publishing media releases as news in under funded newsrooms? Any degree gives you writing skills, it seems journalism manages to do it without giving you anything else like specialist knowledge of a subject you may have to write about. Makes no sense.

Well at least he was never as painful as Jack Waterford – who never once wrote a column without referring to his supposed landed gentry ancestors (yawn) west of Canberra. Turned out they were mud-floor battlers who drank out of jam jars: once having working-class origins became trendy, Waterford revised his accounts of his origins.

Just being Crispin Hull does no favors to the entity known as Crispin Hull.