Category: new media

A recent article critical of technology requirements  for students attending Missouri School of Journalism got me thinking about what should be the minimal tool-set required for students of mass media. The article focused on student objections to a proposed requirement that each student purchase an iPad. Previously students were required to purchase either an iPhone or iPod Touch and other journalism programs, e.g. Virginia Tech, have required incoming students to have a laptop with specific software. Specific courses at various universities may require students to purchase a digital camera, audio recorder or external hard drive in addition to a course textbook and recordable media. The days of books, pencils, binders and 3-hole punched paper are long gone!

Here at CSU-Pueblo we have avoided requiring majors to purchase specific hardware but that may be changing. For several years we have been charging a course fee for certain laboratory-based classes that have a technology component. The fee, ranging from $25 to $50 per course, has helped to defray the cost of computer hardware and software and audio and video recording hardware and media. The University is moving away from course fees and proposing “department fees” that would be applied to every student who has declared a major. For example, a $5 department fee would add an additional $5 per credit hour to all MCCNM majors in an attempt to recoup some of the cost of offering courses that require access to expensive technology. For a student taking 15 credit hours, this would add $75 to the cost of each semester enrolled. Some students, and their parents, may object to these additional fees forcing university administrators to look for other ways to address the cost of technology. One such idea, also controversial, is the one taken by Missouri School of Journalism–to make the technology a prerequisite for students enrolling in the major or in specific courses.

So that got me thinking. What exactly should a mass communication major at CSU-Pueblo, or any other respectable university, have in his/her toolbox of media technology? At a minimum, anyone working in journalism should have a digital camera (still and video), an audio recorder, and, ideally, software on a tablet or laptop that allows for photo, audio and video editing. Without endorsing a specific platform or product line it must be noted that an Apple iPhone or iPad contains all of the above features. Better quality and flexibility can be gained by purchasing the components separately, but the cost would certainly be higher. For a few hundred dollars you can secure a digital still/video camera, and an audio recorder can be had for under $100. However, the editing/encoding/uploading process will likely require a laptop and software that may add $1000 or more. Extensive digital audio and video editing will require extended storage. The good news is that a 1TB hard drive can now be purchase for less than $80 and recordable optical media is relatively inexpensive.

If you want to work in design and layout of print media, a laptop with Photoshop and a page layout program such as InDesign may be the minimal setup with a price tag approaching $1,000. For those who want to work in TV/Film and related visual industries DSLR cameras capable of HD are now readily available for about a thousand dollars. Add another $1,500 or so for the editing hardware/software.

My point in all of this is to ask the question, what is an appropriate level of university support for future media professionals and what should be expected of students? Would a music major be expected to own his own instrument? How about an art major? Do they purchase all or some of their tools and supplies? How about in the sciences? At what point do chemistry or biology lab fees kick in to provide everything from beakers to cadavers?

What do you think? What kind of technology would you be willing to purchase on your own and what do you expect your tuition and fees to provide?

Hidden cameras and microphones date back to the earliest days of radio and TV. Candid Camera caught unsuspecting people reacting to dramatic or humorous situations created by the show’s producers. After the initial shock and surprise wore off, the unwitting victims were asked to sign a talent release thus allowing the producers to put them on the air. Their 15 minutes of fame seemed like a reasonable reward for a few minutes of awkward discomfort.

In recent years the popular series Prime Time Live and Eye to Eye with Connie Chung often used hidden cameras and set-ups to catch people behaving badly. Those who advocate for hard-hitting investigative journalism often argue that deception and hidden cameras/microphones are necessary tools to collect the kind of evidence that will “bust a story wide open.” Even 60 Minutes has resorted to hidden cameras and most of us are very familiar with the controversial sting operations conducted by Chris Hansen for his To Catch a Predator series.

The latest incarnation of gotcha journalism is pushing the envelope of what can be called journalism. At the head of the pack is James O’Keefe. O’Keefe rose to notoriety by posing as a pimp–along-side his assistant posing as a prostitute–to expose the seemly underbelly of Acorn. Acorn, an affiliation of community organizations with ties to Obama, has since lost its federal funding.

Because of recent events the same fate may await NPR and PBS. Just this week O’Keefe struck again by framing NPR fund-raising executive Ron Schiller. In a hidden-camera interview, Schiller is heard venting about conservatives, the tea party, and at one point proclaiming that NPR would be better off without federal funding. This embarrassment, close on the heals of the Juan Williams firing a few months ago, has resulted in the firing of NPR president and CEO Vivian Schiller (no relation to Ron). The bad news couldn’t come at a worse time as congress is currently debating whether to de-fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, i.e. PBS and NPR.

Another recent sting operation was conducted by the anti-abortion group Live Action. Planned Parenthood employees were caught on camera giving advice on how to get around restrictions for treating underage prostitutes. At the very least it appears that the employees were turning a blind eye to the sexual exploitation of minors. The uproar continues to dog Planned Parenthood and may jeopardize its funding as well.

But conservative operatives aren’t the only ones going after their opponents using questionable tactics. Just two weeks ago Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker was “punked” by Buffalo Beast editor Ian Murphy pretending to be a wealthy Republican donor. The phone conversation, which raised questions about Gov. Walkers true intentions, is available on YouTube for anyone who wants to draw his own conclusions.

Credible news organizations and journalistic entities, e.g. the Society of Professional Journalists, have very specific policies about deception and use of hidden microphones and cameras. According to the SPJ code of ethics, the examples above violate the very basic principles of journalism and compromise the integrity of the craft. Kevin Z. Smith, SPJ ethics committee chairman, said “This tactic and the deception used to gain this information violate the highest levels of journalism ethics.” Smith continued, “To lie to a source about your identity and then to bait that source into making comments that are inflammatory is inexcusable and has no place in journalism.”

What do you think…do these tactics cross the line and call into question the integrity of the journalists themselves? Or, are these tactics necessary to expose wrongdoing?

For a rather lengthy discussion of the ethics of hidden cameras, see Gotcha!