Yes, you read it right, the entire discipline!
A platform titled "The Centrist" published the article, "Abolish communications and media studies (Karl du Fresne)," opening with:
"Writer Karl du Fresne says abolishing the department of communications and media studies at every university will vastly ease the financial crisis of those unis while neutralising a key source of division in the culture wars."
This irrational rant would be comical if not for the violence such rhetoric promotes, the direct effects of which are experienced by academics, particularly those of us in the public sphere that are named and are visible for our public scholarship. We have witnessed growing attacks targeting academics and universities both in digital and public spaces, including death threats and actual acts of violence on campus carried out by the far-right.
A platform titled "The Centrist" published the article, "Abolish communications and media studies (Karl du Fresne)," opening with:
"Writer Karl du Fresne says abolishing the department of communications and media studies at every university will vastly ease the financial crisis of those unis while neutralising a key source of division in the culture wars."
This irrational rant would be comical if not for the violence such rhetoric promotes, the direct effects of which are experienced by academics, particularly those of us in the public sphere that are named and are visible for our public scholarship. We have witnessed growing attacks targeting academics and universities both in digital and public spaces, including death threats and actual acts of violence on campus carried out by the far-right.
Of particular concern are the attacks on academics and journalists who study and cover misinformation and hate. I personally have witnessed pile-on hate from far-right groups, including receiving death threats and rape threats. Academics across institutions in Aotearoa who have written to me in response to my opinion piece have shared the intimidation, threats and harassment they have experienced because of the attacks targeting them (often catalysed by similar hit pieces crafted by du Fresne or targeted attacks on The Platform), voicing the chilling effect this produces.
Du Fresne's article holds the entire discipline of Communication and Media Studies responsible for the divisiveness in New Zealand society, accusing the discipline of stoking what it frames as "culture wars."
It draws on the white supremacist conspiracy theory debunked earlier:
"There seems to be no purpose to those studies other than to promote neo-Marxist theories about oppressive power structures, racism, misogyny, white supremacy, social and climate justice and decolonisation. The faculties are infested with zealots and activists with ideas inimical to values such as free speech. Not to mention, they’re useless studies in their own right. Cutting them will help shed weight."
So what exactly is the radical conspiracy here? Theories that challenge oppression, misogyny, and white supremacy, and seek to promote social justice, climate justice, and decolonisation. Another version of this argument is mobilised by the right-wing to Kaupapa Māori theory and research practice, producing the racist discursive frame of Māori elite conspiracy. Topics that critically interrogate power are conspiracies in the ideological universe white supremacists inhabit. These conspiracy theories form the discursive infrastructure that underlies the Trumpian attack on Critical Race Theory and the far-right's reactionary mobilisation to dismantle tertiary education.
It draws on the white supremacist conspiracy theory debunked earlier:
"There seems to be no purpose to those studies other than to promote neo-Marxist theories about oppressive power structures, racism, misogyny, white supremacy, social and climate justice and decolonisation. The faculties are infested with zealots and activists with ideas inimical to values such as free speech. Not to mention, they’re useless studies in their own right. Cutting them will help shed weight."
So what exactly is the radical conspiracy here? Theories that challenge oppression, misogyny, and white supremacy, and seek to promote social justice, climate justice, and decolonisation. Another version of this argument is mobilised by the right-wing to Kaupapa Māori theory and research practice, producing the racist discursive frame of Māori elite conspiracy. Topics that critically interrogate power are conspiracies in the ideological universe white supremacists inhabit. These conspiracy theories form the discursive infrastructure that underlies the Trumpian attack on Critical Race Theory and the far-right's reactionary mobilisation to dismantle tertiary education.
Far-right attacks on academic freedom
The irony is reflective of the hypocrisies peddled by right-wing free speech advocates, calling to dismantle entire disciplines by tarring academics in the discipline as "zealots and activists with ideas inimical to values such as free speech."
The irony is reflective of the hypocrisies peddled by right-wing free speech advocates, calling to dismantle entire disciplines by tarring academics in the discipline as "zealots and activists with ideas inimical to values such as free speech."
We also come to understand what the far-right sees as free speech, the right of white supremacists to spout hate that targets Indigenous communities, minorities (including migrants, and especially Muslim migrants), and gender-diverse communities while practices that empower those at the margins to resist white supremacy are portrayed as radical. Academics researching and studying practices of empowering the marginalised are radical elites conspiring to disrupt New Zealand society.
Observe how du Fresne elsewhere whimpers about the right of the Christian lobbying organisation Family First to place its advertisements on mainstream media infrastructures, blaming these media organisations for colluding to suppress and participating in a conspiracy to silence speech because these media organisations refused to carry the advertisements.
Returning to the attack on Communication and Media Studies, what du Fresne seems to have a problem with are critical studies of entrenched power. Elsewhere, he laments the New Zealand he once knew is rapidly changing, almost becoming unrecognisable to him!
Let's further unpack what the article refers to as "ideas inimical to values such as free speech." Critiques of "oppressive power structures, racism, misogyny, white supremacy," and ideas espousing "social and climate justice and decolonisation" are the sorts of ideas that du Fresne sees as detrimental to free speech. We can conclude that the notion of free speech as a value is specifically organised to safeguard the right of white supremacists to spout hate while unashamedly mobilising to silence the voices of marginalised communities who are the targets of hate to actually challenge the hate.
Let's further unpack what the article refers to as "ideas inimical to values such as free speech." Critiques of "oppressive power structures, racism, misogyny, white supremacy," and ideas espousing "social and climate justice and decolonisation" are the sorts of ideas that du Fresne sees as detrimental to free speech. We can conclude that the notion of free speech as a value is specifically organised to safeguard the right of white supremacists to spout hate while unashamedly mobilising to silence the voices of marginalised communities who are the targets of hate to actually challenge the hate.
Moreover, it seems to du Fresne, academic disciplines can have academic freedom to the extent they have utility. The framing of the discipline of Communication and Media Studies as useless shows his ignorance about what the discipline actually is. Contrast this vacuous claim with the empirical evidence pointing to the diverse career pathways offered by Communication Studies and the global demand for jobs with Communication Skills and training in Communication (more on this in the last piece in this series).
We must critically interrogate the version of academic freedom promoted by the Free Speech Union when one of its key advocates wants to abolish an entire discipline and dismiss entire departments of academics while preaching about free speech.
Who do the far-right want to cancel
The far-right has had a long history of targeting speech that threatens the status quo.
Consider the organizing of the far-right in the US to ban books such as “Slaughterhouse-Five” by Kurt Vonnegut Jr.; “The Best Short Stories of Negro Writers,” edited by Langston Hughes; “Go Ask Alice” by an anonymous author; “Black Boy” by Richard Wright; and “Soul on Ice” by Eldridge Cleaver, mobilised since the 1970s. The National Coalition against Censorship in the US observes, "Books by Black authors are among the most frequently banned."
In the last seven years, with the global rise of white supremacy, rallied by Trump and his hate ecosystem, the far-right cancel culture has been turbo-charged.
This takes the form of organised attacks on libraries, curricula, and public programmes that are anti-racist and that seek to promote spaces for diverse voices at the margins.
Consider the targeting of Rainbow Storytime events across Aotearoa, organised around the narrative construction of the events being used as propaganda tools for brainwashing children and the youth. In the current cycle of far-right hate, the targeting of transgender communities forms the rallying infrastructure for growing the hate movement.
Worse, the events are depicted by the far-right as grooming sessions, exposing children to risks of sexual violence. The narrative of sexual violence is assembled to perpetuate fear and violence directed at transgender women.
The far-right has had a long history of targeting speech that threatens the status quo.
Consider the organizing of the far-right in the US to ban books such as “Slaughterhouse-Five” by Kurt Vonnegut Jr.; “The Best Short Stories of Negro Writers,” edited by Langston Hughes; “Go Ask Alice” by an anonymous author; “Black Boy” by Richard Wright; and “Soul on Ice” by Eldridge Cleaver, mobilised since the 1970s. The National Coalition against Censorship in the US observes, "Books by Black authors are among the most frequently banned."
In the last seven years, with the global rise of white supremacy, rallied by Trump and his hate ecosystem, the far-right cancel culture has been turbo-charged.
This takes the form of organised attacks on libraries, curricula, and public programmes that are anti-racist and that seek to promote spaces for diverse voices at the margins.
Consider the targeting of Rainbow Storytime events across Aotearoa, organised around the narrative construction of the events being used as propaganda tools for brainwashing children and the youth. In the current cycle of far-right hate, the targeting of transgender communities forms the rallying infrastructure for growing the hate movement.
Worse, the events are depicted by the far-right as grooming sessions, exposing children to risks of sexual violence. The narrative of sexual violence is assembled to perpetuate fear and violence directed at transgender women.
Note here du Fresne's ongoing attack targeting the transgender activist Shaneel Lal, and the actual acts of violence that have been directed at Shaneel. Also consider simultaneously the elaborate defense that du Fresne launches for the free speech rights of the hate activist Posie Parker, and the escalation of anti-transgender hate that was mobilised by Posie Parker's visit to Aotearoa.
Figure 1: Example of the intertextuality between du Fresne's blog and the far-right ecosystem
What these far-right mobilisations around cancel culture have in common is their organising to silence voices, particularly voices from the margins who are targeted by white supremacist hate, communicatively inverted as "free speech." On a variety of platforms, the far-right's hate infrastructures attack Māori, Pasifika, migrants (including refugees), transgender, and Muslim activists, labeling these activists as dangerous, mobilising violence directed at the activists. Consider the xenophobia in du Fresne's targeting of migrant activists and politicians such as the Green MP Ricardo Menendez-March, activist Guled Mire, and activist Shaneel Lal. Moreover, the attacks from the far-right are gendered, disproportionately targeting women.
While accusing me and other academics of bringing in foreign influence, Du Fresne suggests he is outside of networks of influence. He claims that I am drawing on U.S. examples in my analyses and that he is largely disconnected from digital platforms. He offers his readers that the only organisation he is linked with is the Free Speech Union. Note here that the Free Speech Union has organised the speaking tour of the U.S. academic and activist Nadine Strossen and placed her interview on Q&A front and center on its website. Note also that the Free Speech Union was co-founded by the New Zealand Taxpayers' Union founder Jordan Williams, who has served as a Fellow of the US-based right-wing Atlas Network. These are just some connections that point to US influence. More empirical analysis is needed to map the ecosystems of influence.
The politics of fear and dismantling critical literacy
The far-right weaves together a narrative of fear directed at its audience base to mobilise cancel culture. It communicatively inverts its mobilisation around cancel culture to erase voices that challenge white supremacy, misogyny, and hate.
Far-right politics works through the mobilisation of fear, interconnected with the discursive tropes around hate.
Critical literacy is a core resource in empowering communities to identify misinformation, to challenge it, and in that process, counter the discourses that produce fear.
The rhetoric of fear that du Fresne circulates works simultaneously to target critical literacy. So while du Fresne wants Communication and Media Studies departments to be dismantled, he wants hate groups such as Family First and far-right white supremacist extremists such as Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux to have free passes at magnifying their hate rhetoric.
The Aotearoa that du Fresne aspires to is where hate speech is unchecked and the infrastructures to cultivate capacities for critical literacies to critique the hate speech are dismantled. It is an Aotearoa where hate proliferates unchecked and communities are not offered the fundamental communicative infrastructures to decipher, decode, and challenge the hate.
It is the ideal ground for white supremacists to flourish.
Facts too much, Mr. du Fresne?
Now returning to du Fresne's attack on Communication and Media Studies, let's look at the following caricature he offers:
"It was no accident that the emergence of these courses coincided with the long march through the institutions by which radical academics, hostile to democratic capitalism, have sought for several decades to subvert the established social and economic order. Communications and media studies provided an ideal incubator for their agenda because no empirical foundation was necessary. Academicians were free to make it up as they went along because what they taught was based almost entirely on theory."
The tried and tested red scare is recycled, reducing Communication and Media Studies to a hostile propaganda machine against democratic capitalism. There is no empirical evidence offered to back up this claim.
Du Fresne is wrong because much of the ongoing scholarship and pedagogy of Communication and Media Studies is shaped by the ideology of democratic capitalism, although there are paradigmatic challenges to this dominant framework and the discipline continues to witness robust inter-paradigmatic debates. Communication and Media Studies is a dynamic discipline, one where ideas are seriously contested and debated upon. For a journalist-turned-blogger who laments about the loss of journalistic objectivity, I say, "Do your research."
His historic account of the discipline is equally incorrect because the disciplinary origins and growth in the Cold War decades are directly constituted within the project of liberal capitalism. To know the history of the discipline, he would actually have to walk into a Communication and Media Studies classroom and learn, or to actually converse with a Communication academic as a serious journalist.
Du Fresne offers the silly caricature that Communication and Media Studies academics "freely make it up" as they go along because he wrongly assumes what is taught in the discipline is based "almost entirely on theory."
That du Fresne has no understanding of social science, much less the work of theory building, is abundantly clear. In a large portion of the Communication and Media Studies discipline, theory building is shaped by empiricism, although there are diverse paradigmatic approaches to the question of the relationship between data and theory.
The rant then ends with a turn to journalism.
"One ruinous consequence is that the training of journalists has been subjected to academic capture. Not all journalism courses are taught by universities, but the threshold for entry to the profession has been progressively raised to the point where a degree, if not mandatory, is at least highly desirable. That brings budding journalists into the orbit of lecturers who are, in many cases, proselytisers for the neo-Marxist far Left."
This paragraph gives away the source of du Fresne's angst. Before I unpack this angst, let's note that preparing students to be journalists is a small segment of what the Communication and Media Studies discipline does. While indeed, journalism programmes, with the vitally important journalism education they offer, are a small part of Communication and Media Studies departments, schools and/or colleges (there are diverse configurations in which the discipline is organised), Communication degrees prepare students for a wide range of jobs that include communication design, advertising copywriting, media planning, production management, digital strategy, brand management, human resource management, risk and crisis management, and policy analyst, to name a few (more on this in the last opinion piece in the series).
Why journalism schools are important?
Since my first piece appeared, a number of Communication and Media Studies colleagues have reached out to me and shared their stories of being targeted by du Fresne and the far-right ecosystem (including The Platform that carried the original opinion that I critiqued) with similar targeted campaigns.
I have since then learned that du Fresne has in the past served as an editor of a major newspaper in Aotearoa.
When he launched a similar uninformed attack on Massey colleagues, Dr. Craig Prichard and Dr. Sean Phelan, he drew on the power of the media infrastructure. Sean, in his eloquent analysis, schooled du Fresne. Dr. Phelan writes:
"I thought his talk was both laughable and contemptible. It’s hard to imagine a more vivid example of the leftist elite’s contempt for any opinions other than its own and its determination to demonise the expression of legitimate dissent."
Note how casually du Fresne misframes evidence-based argument about misinformation as "elite's contempt for any opinions other than its own" and "its determination to demonise the expression of legitimate dissent."
He then goes on with his attack on Daubs,
"He talked about “the truth” and “false stories”. He used these terms as if their meaning is settled. But who defines what’s true and what’s false? Why, people like Daubs, of course. Under the pretense of protecting us, he and others of his ilk want to control what we can say, and by extension what we think. The purpose is to extinguish all and any opinion that stands in the way of their radical, transformational agenda."
Note here the framing of empirically-based research on misinformation as extinguishing opinion (ironic for a journalist who accuses woke journalism education of being devoid of empiricism). Attend to the conspiracy web du Fresne weaves to dangerously accuse misinformation researchers as conspiracists. His attack on Dr. Daubs and the Disinformation Project peaks with the following statement:
"It made me wonder just who the real conspiracy theorists are. Is it the far-Right, or are the real conspiracy theorists people like Daubs and the shadowy Disinformation Project, which feverishly promotes moral panic over phantasms of its own creation?"
In du Fresne's warped world, disinformation researchers become conspiracists with a shadowy agenda of subverting democracy.
The poor grasp of logic and sloppy approach toward journalistic research is telling. Worse, from this space of ignorance, du Fresne offers prescriptions for what journalism should look like. He writes:
"There is little about the theory and principles of journalism that can’t be taught in a six-month Polytechnic course. The rest comes with experience. Generations learned it by doing, and served their readers (sorry, “consumers of content”) well."
What these far-right mobilisations around cancel culture have in common is their organising to silence voices, particularly voices from the margins who are targeted by white supremacist hate, communicatively inverted as "free speech." On a variety of platforms, the far-right's hate infrastructures attack Māori, Pasifika, migrants (including refugees), transgender, and Muslim activists, labeling these activists as dangerous, mobilising violence directed at the activists. Consider the xenophobia in du Fresne's targeting of migrant activists and politicians such as the Green MP Ricardo Menendez-March, activist Guled Mire, and activist Shaneel Lal. Moreover, the attacks from the far-right are gendered, disproportionately targeting women.
When the margins speak, the status quo (white, settler colonial, cisnormative, patriarchal) is threatened, and it is this status quo that the far-right seeks to safeguard. Mobilising around this status quo offers rich electoral dividends for right-wing political parties and the funders that uphold the economic infrastructure.
The politics of fear and dismantling critical literacy
The far-right weaves together a narrative of fear directed at its audience base to mobilise cancel culture. It communicatively inverts its mobilisation around cancel culture to erase voices that challenge white supremacy, misogyny, and hate.
Far-right politics works through the mobilisation of fear, interconnected with the discursive tropes around hate.
Critical literacy is a core resource in empowering communities to identify misinformation, to challenge it, and in that process, counter the discourses that produce fear.
The rhetoric of fear that du Fresne circulates works simultaneously to target critical literacy. So while du Fresne wants Communication and Media Studies departments to be dismantled, he wants hate groups such as Family First and far-right white supremacist extremists such as Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux to have free passes at magnifying their hate rhetoric.
The Aotearoa that du Fresne aspires to is where hate speech is unchecked and the infrastructures to cultivate capacities for critical literacies to critique the hate speech are dismantled. It is an Aotearoa where hate proliferates unchecked and communities are not offered the fundamental communicative infrastructures to decipher, decode, and challenge the hate.
It is the ideal ground for white supremacists to flourish.
Facts too much, Mr. du Fresne?
Now returning to du Fresne's attack on Communication and Media Studies, let's look at the following caricature he offers:
"It was no accident that the emergence of these courses coincided with the long march through the institutions by which radical academics, hostile to democratic capitalism, have sought for several decades to subvert the established social and economic order. Communications and media studies provided an ideal incubator for their agenda because no empirical foundation was necessary. Academicians were free to make it up as they went along because what they taught was based almost entirely on theory."
The tried and tested red scare is recycled, reducing Communication and Media Studies to a hostile propaganda machine against democratic capitalism. There is no empirical evidence offered to back up this claim.
Du Fresne is wrong because much of the ongoing scholarship and pedagogy of Communication and Media Studies is shaped by the ideology of democratic capitalism, although there are paradigmatic challenges to this dominant framework and the discipline continues to witness robust inter-paradigmatic debates. Communication and Media Studies is a dynamic discipline, one where ideas are seriously contested and debated upon. For a journalist-turned-blogger who laments about the loss of journalistic objectivity, I say, "Do your research."
His historic account of the discipline is equally incorrect because the disciplinary origins and growth in the Cold War decades are directly constituted within the project of liberal capitalism. To know the history of the discipline, he would actually have to walk into a Communication and Media Studies classroom and learn, or to actually converse with a Communication academic as a serious journalist.
Du Fresne offers the silly caricature that Communication and Media Studies academics "freely make it up" as they go along because he wrongly assumes what is taught in the discipline is based "almost entirely on theory."
That du Fresne has no understanding of social science, much less the work of theory building, is abundantly clear. In a large portion of the Communication and Media Studies discipline, theory building is shaped by empiricism, although there are diverse paradigmatic approaches to the question of the relationship between data and theory.
The rant then ends with a turn to journalism.
"One ruinous consequence is that the training of journalists has been subjected to academic capture. Not all journalism courses are taught by universities, but the threshold for entry to the profession has been progressively raised to the point where a degree, if not mandatory, is at least highly desirable. That brings budding journalists into the orbit of lecturers who are, in many cases, proselytisers for the neo-Marxist far Left."
This paragraph gives away the source of du Fresne's angst. Before I unpack this angst, let's note that preparing students to be journalists is a small segment of what the Communication and Media Studies discipline does. While indeed, journalism programmes, with the vitally important journalism education they offer, are a small part of Communication and Media Studies departments, schools and/or colleges (there are diverse configurations in which the discipline is organised), Communication degrees prepare students for a wide range of jobs that include communication design, advertising copywriting, media planning, production management, digital strategy, brand management, human resource management, risk and crisis management, and policy analyst, to name a few (more on this in the last opinion piece in the series).
Why journalism schools are important?
Since my first piece appeared, a number of Communication and Media Studies colleagues have reached out to me and shared their stories of being targeted by du Fresne and the far-right ecosystem (including The Platform that carried the original opinion that I critiqued) with similar targeted campaigns.
I have since then learned that du Fresne has in the past served as an editor of a major newspaper in Aotearoa.
"Now, I’m not sure what the rest of you make of this [i.e. du Fresne's suggestion that most people would find Sean's ideas "obnoxious" and "peculiar"], and, unlike du Fresne, I won’t claim to speak for you. But I’m pretty confident that most newspaper readers would be open-minded enough to realise that we may as well close down our universities now if they had to comply with the repressive dictates of people like du Fresne. His reaction is essentially that of a scared child, who lashes out at anything that is different from their perception of ‘normal’.
The irony here is that du Fresne’s denunciation of me was in response to my suggestion that there is an intellectually repressive element in the New Zealand journalism culture. There’s hardly any need to make a counter-argument, therefore, since he himself does such a superb job of re-illustrating my argument."
The irony here is that du Fresne’s denunciation of me was in response to my suggestion that there is an intellectually repressive element in the New Zealand journalism culture. There’s hardly any need to make a counter-argument, therefore, since he himself does such a superb job of re-illustrating my argument."
Here's a peer-reviewed article Dr. Phelan wrote about the fiasco.
He has similarly targeted Victoria University colleague Dr. Michael Daubs for his public presentation of his work on misinformation. Dr. Daubs was harassed during this public event; however, du Fresne frames that harassment with a both-sides trope. He mischaracterizes Dr. Daubs as an American import (the same xenophobic language he used in his targeting of me) to then state:
"I thought his talk was both laughable and contemptible. It’s hard to imagine a more vivid example of the leftist elite’s contempt for any opinions other than its own and its determination to demonise the expression of legitimate dissent."
Note how casually du Fresne misframes evidence-based argument about misinformation as "elite's contempt for any opinions other than its own" and "its determination to demonise the expression of legitimate dissent."
He then goes on with his attack on Daubs,
"He talked about “the truth” and “false stories”. He used these terms as if their meaning is settled. But who defines what’s true and what’s false? Why, people like Daubs, of course. Under the pretense of protecting us, he and others of his ilk want to control what we can say, and by extension what we think. The purpose is to extinguish all and any opinion that stands in the way of their radical, transformational agenda."
Note here the framing of empirically-based research on misinformation as extinguishing opinion (ironic for a journalist who accuses woke journalism education of being devoid of empiricism). Attend to the conspiracy web du Fresne weaves to dangerously accuse misinformation researchers as conspiracists. His attack on Dr. Daubs and the Disinformation Project peaks with the following statement:
"It made me wonder just who the real conspiracy theorists are. Is it the far-Right, or are the real conspiracy theorists people like Daubs and the shadowy Disinformation Project, which feverishly promotes moral panic over phantasms of its own creation?"
In du Fresne's warped world, disinformation researchers become conspiracists with a shadowy agenda of subverting democracy.
The poor grasp of logic and sloppy approach toward journalistic research is telling. Worse, from this space of ignorance, du Fresne offers prescriptions for what journalism should look like. He writes:
"There is little about the theory and principles of journalism that can’t be taught in a six-month Polytechnic course. The rest comes with experience. Generations learned it by doing, and served their readers (sorry, “consumers of content”) well."
Du Fresne sees the practice of journalism as devoid of theoretical preparation for critical thought and analysis. This is elucidated well in another post:
"Objectivity in journalism is fashionably denounced as a myth, thereby giving reporters license to decide what their readers should know and what should be kept from them. The worthy idea that journalists could hold strong personal opinions about political and economic issues but show no trace of them in their work, which used to be fundamental, has been jettisoned."
Here's another reflection:
"Unfortunately such people are now outnumbered by university-educated social justice activists posing as journalists who consider it their mission to correct the thinking of their ignorant, bigoted or misguided readers. This would be marginally more tolerable if they could write, but many of them can’t."
The archaic notion of journalism as the pursuit of objectivity (as if objectivity is defined outside of values) is placed at odds with journalism in the pursuit of justice. For du Fresne, university education prepares students to ask questions of social justice and bring these questions into their journalistic practice, and this is a danger to journalism. This gives away du Fresne's idea of objectivity in journalism, one that upholds and perpetuates the status quo, and doesn't interrogate the power and control that perpetuate it.
"Objectivity in journalism is fashionably denounced as a myth, thereby giving reporters license to decide what their readers should know and what should be kept from them. The worthy idea that journalists could hold strong personal opinions about political and economic issues but show no trace of them in their work, which used to be fundamental, has been jettisoned."
Here's another reflection:
"Unfortunately such people are now outnumbered by university-educated social justice activists posing as journalists who consider it their mission to correct the thinking of their ignorant, bigoted or misguided readers. This would be marginally more tolerable if they could write, but many of them can’t."
The archaic notion of journalism as the pursuit of objectivity (as if objectivity is defined outside of values) is placed at odds with journalism in the pursuit of justice. For du Fresne, university education prepares students to ask questions of social justice and bring these questions into their journalistic practice, and this is a danger to journalism. This gives away du Fresne's idea of objectivity in journalism, one that upholds and perpetuates the status quo, and doesn't interrogate the power and control that perpetuate it.
As Dr. Phelan notes (and for a more elaborate analysis by Sean, see this journal article here: https://www.academia.edu/1857573/Media_critique_agonistic_respect_and_the_im_possibility_of_a_really_quite_pretentious_liminal_space), du Fresne does an excellent job of unintentionally illustrating the value of robust journalism education. Fortunately, global trends in journalism have long moved far beyond the silly binaries du Fresne spins. Journalism education is here to stay and grow!
How a Communication and Media Studies Education prepares you!
After graduating with a Bachelor of Technology (Honours) in Agricultural Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur (the IITs have produced leading tech entrepreneurs and top leaders in global tech including Sundar Pichai at Google and Arvind Krishna at IBM), I pursued a degree in Communication Studies because I saw the value that communication offered to building effective engineering solutions to address the needs of communities.
After graduating with a Bachelor of Technology (Honours) in Agricultural Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur (the IITs have produced leading tech entrepreneurs and top leaders in global tech including Sundar Pichai at Google and Arvind Krishna at IBM), I pursued a degree in Communication Studies because I saw the value that communication offered to building effective engineering solutions to address the needs of communities.
I am not alone in making such a career switch.
You will see in Communication many such career moves, including engineers going on to study communication, with a desire to solve societal challenges. Take the current past President of the International Communication Association, and the Jane S. & William J. White Professor of Behavioral Sciences in the McCormick School of Engineering & Applied Science, the School of Communication and the Kellogg School of Management and Director of the Science of Networks in Communities (SONIC) Research Group at Northwestern University, Professor Noshir Contractor, another IIT alum, as one illustrious example of the switch from Engineering to Communication.
I am proud of my Ph.D. from one of the earliest journalism schools, the Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Minnesota (although my degree focused on advertising and strategic communication, and not journalism). The University of Minnesota has produced excellent journalists such as Michelle Norris, host of All Things Considered, National Public Radio's longest-running news service programme. Norris has been nominated four times for the Pulitzer Prize and has received numerous awards for her work, including the 1989 Livingston Award, an Emmy Award, and Peabody Award for her contribution to ABC's coverage of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Another J-School alum was Eric Sevareid, who worked with Edward R. Murrow on CBS radio, and went on to become a commentator on the CBS Evening News for thirteen years, being recognised with Emmy and Peabody Awards.
Other significant journalists with journalism degrees include the pioneer of investigative journalism, Carl Bernstein, University of Maryland (think Watergate); the Emmy and Peabody-winning journalist Connie Chung: University of Maryland; the famed sportscaster Bob Costas: Syracuse University, and the Pulitzer-winning, former Editor--in-Chief of the Wall Street Journal Matt Murray: Northwestern University to name a few (this is a tiny fraction of journalism graduates who have gone on to become award-winning journalists).
Other significant journalists with journalism degrees include the pioneer of investigative journalism, Carl Bernstein, University of Maryland (think Watergate); the Emmy and Peabody-winning journalist Connie Chung: University of Maryland; the famed sportscaster Bob Costas: Syracuse University, and the Pulitzer-winning, former Editor--in-Chief of the Wall Street Journal Matt Murray: Northwestern University to name a few (this is a tiny fraction of journalism graduates who have gone on to become award-winning journalists).
In Aotearoa, the widely respected journalist Kim Hill has a degree in French and German from Massey and Otago Universities and then studied journalism at the University of Canterbury's Postgraduate School of Journalism.
Globally, as journalism is increasingly professionalized in a rapidly transforming digital context, journalism schools are the go-to places for the education of the next generation of journalists. Fortunately, Aotearoa has rapidly caught up with this global trend and we will continue to witness increasing professionalization of journalism practice.
It is humbling to teach in a School with a strong journalism programme at Massey University accredited by the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications (ACEJMC) and located within a Communication and Media Studies programme that is consistently ranked number 1 in Aotearoa New Zealand. ACEJMC is the main global accreditation body of journalism education, and this speaks volumes for our excellent journalism programme. Ours is New Zealand's longest-running journalism qualification. Our graduates are highly sought after, with 85% of graduates securing employment within six months of graduation.
It is humbling to teach in a School with a strong journalism programme at Massey University accredited by the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications (ACEJMC) and located within a Communication and Media Studies programme that is consistently ranked number 1 in Aotearoa New Zealand. ACEJMC is the main global accreditation body of journalism education, and this speaks volumes for our excellent journalism programme. Ours is New Zealand's longest-running journalism qualification. Our graduates are highly sought after, with 85% of graduates securing employment within six months of graduation.
Journalism education, and more broadly, Communication and Media Studies education are here to stay!
The growing body of evidence on strategies for countering conspiracy theories points to the importance of critical education and analysis, with a focus on prevention.