Content-Type: text/html Page , To Be on TV To Be On TV or To Be a TV Journalist: Students' and Professionals' Perceptions of the Role of Journalism in Society The Jane Pauley Task Force on Mass Communication Education called for schools to reconsider their offerings in broadcast journalism.[1] The report encouraged schools to broaden the educational background of broadcast news students, improve their basic skills and limit enrollment to only the best students, a recommendation that some educators considered "elitist."[2] These recommendations were debated at a meeting of AEJMC when they were first released and remain a topic of discussion among faculty and news professionals. However, one aspect of the report has garnered less attention. When asked about the recent broadcast news graduates he had interviewed, one news director complained: "The vast majority have no idea what journalism is about." Other news directors said that students seemed to see TV journalism more as an opportunity to be on TV than to practice journalism. They were concerned about the students' attitudes as much as their technical preparation. These concerns appear to be widespread among news directors. Only 15% of them thought broadcast news majors were adequately prepared in the area of journalism ethics; 18% in the business of broadcast journalism and 3% in mass communication law. Journalism educators, on the other hand, thought their schools were doing a good job in these areas. A majority of them thought their students were well-prepared in ethics, communication law and the business of journalism. The finding that professors and news employers disagree on the intellectual foundations students receive may be linked to a larger question: Are college courses successful in shaping ethics and attitudes of students? Much of the research on the effectiveness of media ethics course has less than supportive of these courses. Researchers have used the Rokeach Value Inventory, which assesses attitudes by asking test-takers to rank 36 attributes in order of how much value they place in them.[3] The list includes items like "peace in the world," "wisdom" and "mature love." Lee and Padgett gave this inventory to students before and after a journalism ethics class and found that "a short-term mass media ethics study could not develop values considered essential for ethical behavior."[4] Two other studies-one with students in Canada and one in Tennessee-also used the Rokeach Inventory and found that students' values did change, but the nature of the values changes differed in the two stud ies.[5] Lee and Padgett suggested these differences were a result of using students with different backgrounds and variations in the courses themselves. The present student will probe the news directors' concerns about the ethical and attitudinal background of broadcast-news majors. Specifically, we will ask: 1. Do the journalistic values of working broadcast journalists differ from those of students planning broadcast news careers? 2. Do the attitudes toward specific ethical issues in journalism differ between working broadcast journalists and students planning broadcast news careers? 3. Do college courses in journalism ethics and law have an impact on students' attitudes toward ethical issues and other journalistic values? 4. Since they have chosen careers in broadcast journalism rather than other areas of radio-television studies, do broadcast-news majors have different attitudes on these issues than broadcast majors who do not plan news careers? Methods Several research efforts have explored the values and attitudes of working journalist, some dating back to the 1930s. Perhaps the landmark study in this area was done by John W.C. Johnstone and his colleagues at the University of Illinois and published as The News People in 1976. Using Johnstone's research as a starting point, David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit have produced three extensive studies of working journalists. The most recent, published in 1996, is The American Journalist in the 1990s.[6] Wilhoit and Weaver included a series of questions about ethics and journalist values in their surveys. We decided to use their questions as a basis for comparison between broadcast students and working broadcast professionals. We acknowledge that because the surveys were done a few years apart, some differences in their responses may be the result of history. We would note, however, that the professional values of working journalists remained consistent in Weaver and Wilhoit's surveys in the 1980s and their latest survey. Responses to half the items differed by 1 percentage point or less. Only one role, "to get information to public quickly," changed markedly. Weaver and Wilhoit attributed that change to the advent of new technologies.[7] We believe this level of consistency in professional values of working journalists in the past two decades lends some validity to our use of Weaver and Wilhoit's data as a basis for comparison. To prepare this part of the questionnaire, we repeated verbatim the wording of the questions on the Weaver-Wilhoit survey. We added questions about the courses students had taken, their intent to work in broadcast journalism, the type of work they expected to do at the beginning of their careers, their expectations for career growth and their salary expectations. We selected at random from the BEA Directory ten universities and colleges that had programs in broadcast journalism. We asked faculty at those schools if they would administer the forms. Eight initially indicated they would, but two failed to return the questionnaires. The final pool included both large programs in major universities and smaller programs at private colleges. We received 170 useable surveys. Work done by researchers at Ohio State University has consistently shown that many students who major in journalism do not pursue careers in the media. To lessen the impact of those students on our findings, we defined "broadcast journalism students" as students who said they were majors and who said they planned to work in broadcast news. Findings Role of Journalism: Weaver and Wilhoit gave journalists a list of 12 roles the news media might play in society. We gave the same list to broadcast-news students. On one level, students and professionals were similar. They tended to agree on which values were more important and which were less important. A rank-order test found a fairly strong correlation between the professionals and the students (Pearson r = .785, p = .0018). However, there are important differences in the responses of news directors and students that might account for some of the criticisms voiced by news directors in the Pauley report. Professionals placed significantly higher importance than students to investigating government claims, avoiding unverified stories, giving the people a voice and being an adversary of government. Student journalists placed greater emphasis than professionals in providing entertainment, getting the widest audience and developing the intellectual and cultural interests of their audiences. (See Table 1.) We found significant differences in the responses of men and women broadcast-news majors. Men were significantly more likely to place great importance in the functions of providing entertain (38% to 15%), being an adversary to government (24% to 7%) and setting the agenda (27% to 9%). Men also placed higher regard to letting citizens express their views (43% to 20%). (See Table 2.) Wilhoit and Weaver used factor analysis of the responses they received from professionals to group responses from professionals. They found that the responses fell into four groupings. Most professional journalists fell into Weaver and Wilhoit's interpretative-investigative function. "This approach was a blending of three important roles: investigating government claims, analyzing and interpreting complex problems, and discussing public policies in a timely way." It was a characteristic that seemed to be very important to journalists at news magazines, wire services and daily papers but somewhat less so among TV journalists. Broadcast students seemed even less likely to fall into this group. Fewer of them rated "investigating government claims" as "extremely important," at a statistically significant level. They gave somewhat higher ratings to "analyzing and interpreting complex problems," but not to a significant level. (See Table 3.) The second most common function among professionals was the disseminator function. These journalists saw great importance in "getting information to the public quickly" and "avoiding stories with unverifiable 'facts.'" The students were rated both of those items significantly lower than working broadcast journalists. (See Table 4.) Adversary function, which consisted of the roles of "being an adversary to government" and "being an adversary to business," was another function that was more common among print journalists (32% of news-magazine journalists and 26% of daily newspaper journalists). But it was less common among both student (12% and 11%) and professional broadcasters (17% and 9%). (See Table 5.) The fourth category, the populist mobilizer function, attracted so few working journalists that Weaver and Wilhoit dropped it from many of their subsequent statistical studies. This function included "allow public to express views," "develop cultural and intellectual interests," "entertainment" and "set the political agenda." However, many of these roles were considered "extremely important" by broadcast students. They gave significantly higher ratings to three of them. (See Table 6.) When we performed a factor analysis of the student responses, we found that their responses fell into different groupings than did Wilhoit and Weaver's professionals. We labeled them: serious-minded journalists, activist journalists and entertainment-oriented journalists. The largest group of students clustered in the serious-minded journalists category. They gave great important to discussing national issues (27%), investigating government claims (67%) and developing the intellectual and cultural interests of the public (40%). The second largest grouping, entertainment-oriented journalists, gave high marks to the important of entertaining the public (22%) and drawing the widest possible audience (30%). The smallest grouping was the activist journalists saw it as important that the news media set the political agenda (15%), be the adversary of government (12%) and influence public opinion. Ethics-Wilhoit and Weaver gave broadcast-news professionals 10 questionable reporting practices and asked them if they thought the practices could be justified. We gave students the same list of practices. The students in our survey responded significantly different to half of the questions, particularly those involving privacy and questionable reporting practices. In some cases the differences were very large. To naming rape victims, 34% of working journalists thought it might be justified; only 9% of students agreed. To using personal documents without permission, 45% of pros said they could justify it while 21% of students said they could. Students were also less accepting of some reporting practices. While 90% of professionals approved of some use of hidden microphones and cameras, 75% of students agreed with the practice. Students were less likely to approve of getting employed by a firm to gain inside information: 42% of students and 65% of professionals said so. (See Table 7.) The students differed even more for the general body of working professionals. When print and wire service journalists were included, the students differed significantly in eight classifications. (See Table 8.) Women students differed significantly from men students when asked if badgering witnesses could be justified. They were also less willing to name rape suspects, although the difference was not statistically significant. (See Table 9.) Effects of ethics courses-In direct comparisons, media ethics courses and media law courses appear to have little impact on students. To questions concerning ethical situations and the roles of journalism, responses of students who said they had taken a course were very similar to those who had not. (See Table 10, 11, 12 and 13.) Before we conclude that the courses are ineffective, we should note two other findings. First, results varied from school to school. At one of our responding schools, students who had an ethics course differed significantly on five of the role questions with ethics students being more interested in being an adversary to government, giving citizens a voice, discussing cultural activities and national politics and appealing to a wide audience. At another school, there were significant differences to questions concerning appealing to the widest audience and to entertain. Clearly, it seems likely that what's being taught in those courses and how well taught the courses may be factors. These factors, of course, are beyond the scope of the present study. A second observation is that factor analyses of students who planned broadcast news careers varied somewhat by whether they had had the course. Whether the courses are responsible for the variations and whether the variations are of much meaning is open to discussion. (See Table 14.) Differences between News and Non-News Broadcast Majors. Many news directors indicated in the Pauley study that they wondered if broadcast-news majors were more interested in being on TV than in doing journalism. When we compared majors planning news careers with those who did not plan to do news, we found one statistically significant difference in their attitudes on ethical issues and the importance of various journalistic functions. News majors were more likely to believe using hidden cameras was justified (76% to 63%). Ethics courses seemed to have more impact on the broadcast students who did not plan news careers. After taking an ethics course, these students were more likely to consider it important that the news media contribute to the cultural life of the community (45% to 27%) and to entertain (38% to 21%) and less likely to consider it important the media stay away from unverified facts (49% to 27%). They were more likely to think the media is sometimes justified in naming rape victims (30% to 11%). Conclusions The results of our survey suggest that the news directors are correct when they contend that broadcast-news graduates do not share many of their ethical views or their understandings of the role of journalism in society. On 10 ethical situations, the new graduates differed significantly on half of them. When compared with all working journalists, the broadcast-news students differed significantly on eight. Their differences were strongest in situations that related to privacy. Broadcast journalism students also do not share an understanding of the role of journalism with the working professionals. They were much more likely than the professionals to believe an important role of journalism is to entertain. They also saw their role as setting the agenda and developing the cultural interests of the community. For their part, news directors were more likely to believe their roles as investigating government claims, getting the information to the public quickly and avoiding unverifiable facts. The importance students gave to entertainment and their relative lack of interest in investigating government claims are probably why some news directors complained that students choose broadcast-news careers so they can be on TV rather than to become journalists. The gap between students and professionals were evident in the findings in another way. When Weaver and Wilhoit analyzed the responses of working journalists, they found four groupings: the interpretative function, the disseminator function, the adversarial function and the populist mobilizer function. The broadcast-news students did not fit well into those categories. They fell into three groupings: serious-minded journalists, activist journalists and entertainment-oriented journalists. Working journalists may feel at home with students in the serious-minded grouping, but they would probably be concerned about working with graduates in the activist and entertainment-oriented groupings. The Task Force apparently hopes that adding courses in ethics and law will help bridge these ethical and attitudinal differences. The report's conclusion ended with this challenge: Core journalism values will remain the same. In fact, they will be needed more than ever. The premium placed on quality writing is growing, not diminishing. More than ever, there is a demand for accuracy, fairness, objectivity, balance, "gutsy" news judgment and a clear sense of ethics. Earlier research on the impact of ethics courses has looked at whether the students' values change in rather broad terms like importance of family and security. The professionals' probably are hoping for more specific changes, namely, that the students adapt professional values similar to theirs. Our research did not find that ethics courses in general achieved that goal. However, at some universities, there were significant differences. Students who took the ethics class at those universities responded differently from their fellow students who did not take the course and the students who took the course were more similar to the news directors. Our research therefore only raises questions about the nature of college media ethics courses. Do the goals of these classes differ among instructors and universities? Previous research has used tests that look for changes in attitudes toward larger life issues. Should the classes be aimed at changing the students' values or at more specific professional interests? We hope further research will look at these questions. In conclusion, our findings support the news directors' perceptions that students' values are much different than those of working journalists, particularly in the role of entertainment as a journalistic value. We believe broadcast-news educators may want to consider the news directors' concerns and decide if their students may need more background in the role of journalism in society. TABLE 1 Importance Given to Journalistic Functions By Broadcast Journalism Students and Working Journalists Percentage Who Say Function Is Extremely Important Journalistic function Television Journalism Professionalsa Television Journalism Studentsb Getting information to public quickly Investigating official claims Avoiding unverifiable facts Allow public to express views Analyzing complex problems Discussing national policy Develop cultural interests Adversary of officials Adversary of business Entertainment Set the political agenda 80 62 49 39 37 26 18 17 9 7 4 67* 48* 31* 27 45 27 40** 12 11 22** 15** a. Data taken from Weaver and Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s, 1996. b. Survey taken Fall 2000. * <.05, ** <.01 TABLE 2 Importance Assigned to News Media Roles By Men and Women Broadcast Journalism Students Percentage Saying Extremely Important Men Women Get information to public quickly Investigate government claims Avoid stories with unverified content Provide analysis of complex problems Let people express views Discuss national policy Serve as adversary of government Concentrate on widest audience Develop intellectual/cultural interests Provide entertainment Set the political agenda 71 52 38 43 43 29 24 38 43 38 27 65 47 28 47 20* 26 7* 26 39 15* 9* * <.05 TABLE 3 The Interpretative Function Percentage Who Say Function Is Extremely Important Journalistic function Television Journalism Professionalsa Television Journalism Studentsb Investigating official claims Analyzing complex problems Discussing national policy 62 37 26 48* 45 27 a. Data taken from Weaver and Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s, 1996. b. Survey taken Fall 2000. * <.05 TABLE 4 The Disseminator Function Percentage Who Say Function Is Extremely Important Journalistic function Television Journalism Professionals Television Journalism Students Getting information to public quickly Avoiding unverifiable facts 80 49 67* 31* * <.05 TABLE 5 The Adversarial Function Percentage Who Say Function Is Extremely Important Journalistic function Television Journalism Professionalsa Television Journalism Studentsb Adversary of officials Adversary of business 17 9 12 11 a. Data taken from Weaver and Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s, 1996. b. Survey taken Fall 2000. TABLE 6 The Populist Mobilizer Function Percentage Who Say Function Is Extremely Important Journalistic function Television Journalism Professionalsa Television Journalism Studentsb Allow public to express views Develop cultural interests Entertainment Set the political agenda 39 18 7 4 27 40** 22** 15** a. Data taken from Weaver and Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s, 1996. b. Survey taken Fall 2000. * <.05, ** < .01 TABLE 7 Broadcast Journalism Students and Working Journalists Acceptance of Various Reporting Practices Percentage Saying May Be Justified Reporting practice Television Journalism Professionalsa Television Journalism Studentsb Paying people for confidential information Using confidential business or government documents without authorization or permission Claiming to be somebody else to get information Agreeing to protect confidentiality of a source and not doing so Badgering unwilling informants to get a story Making use of personal documents such as letters and photographs without permission Getting employed in a firm or organization to gain inside information Using hidden microphones or cameras Using re-creations or dramatizations of news by actors Disclosing the names of rape victims 31 77 31 5 46 45 65 90 42 34 25 24* 22 7.5 34.3 21* 42* 75* 43 9* a. Data taken from Weaver and Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s, 1996. b. Survey taken Fall 2000. * <.01 TABLE 8 Importance Assigned to News Media Roles By All Journalists and Broadcast Journalism Students Percentage Saying Extremely Important Journalism Professionalsa Television Journalism Studentsb Get information to public quickly Investigate government claims Avoid stories with unverified content Provide analysis of complex problems Let people express views Discuss national policy Serve as adversary of government Concentrate on widest audience Develop intellectual/cultural interests Provide entertainment Serve as adversary of business Set the political agenda 69 67 49 48 48 39 21 20 18 14 14 5 67 48** 31** 45 27*** 27* 12 30* 40*** 22* 11 15*** a. Data taken from Weaver and Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s, 1996. b. Survey taken Fall 2000. * <.05, ** p < .01, ***p<.001 TABLE 9 Men and Women Broadcast Journalism Students' Acceptance of Various Reporting Practices Percentage Saying May Be Justified Reporting practice Men Women Paying people for confidential information Using confidential business or government documents without authorization or permission Claiming to be somebody else to get information Agreeing to protect confidentiality of a source and not doing so Badgering unwilling informants to get a story Making use of personal documents such as letters and photographs without permission Getting employed in a firm or organization to gain inside information Using hidden microphones or cameras Using re-creations or dramatizations of news by actors Disclosing the names of rape victims 33 33 19 4 43 19 33 71 29 19 30 20 24 14 30* 22 46 76 40 4 a. Data taken from Weaver and Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s, 1996. b. Survey taken Fall 2000. * <.01 TABLE 10 Ethical Issues: Broadcast News Majors and Ethics Courses Percentage Who Say Function Is Extremely Important Reporting practice Had Ethics Course No Ethics Course Investigating official claims Analyzing complex problems Discussing national policy Getting information to public quickly Avoiding unverifiable facts Adversary of officials Allow public to express views Develop cultural interests Entertainment Set the political agenda Getting information to public quickly Avoiding unverifiable facts Getting information to public quickly 47 53 27 70 20 7 27 43 27 10 70 20 70 50 39 29 70 20 16 27 38 19 19 65 41* 65 * p< .05 TABLE 11 Importance of Various Journalistic Functions: Broadcast Journalism Students And Ethics Courses Percentage Who Say Function Is Extremely Important Reporting practice Had Ethics Course No Ethics Course Investigating official claims Analyzing complex problems Discussing national policy Getting information to public quickly Avoiding unverifiable facts Adversary of officials Allow public to express views Develop cultural interests Entertainment Set the political agenda Getting information to public quickly Avoiding unverifiable facts Getting information to public quickly 47 53 27 70 20 7 27 43 27 10 70 20 70 50 39 29 70 20 16 27 38 19 19 65 41* 65 * p< .05 TABLE 12 Ethical Issues: Broadcast Journalism Students and Law Courses Percentage Saying May Be Justified Reporting practice Had Law Course No Law Course Paying people for confidential information Using confidential business or government documents without authorization or permission Claiming to be somebody else to get information Agreeing to protect confidentiality of a source and not doing so Badgering unwilling informants to get a story Making use of personal documents such as letters and photographs without permission Getting employed in a firm or organization to gain inside information Using hidden microphones or cameras Using re-creations or dramatizations of news by actors Disclosing the names of rape victims 30 17 20 8 33 23 30 70 35 13 35 35* 27 8 39 19 50 81 54 4 p < .01 Table 13. Groupings of student responses Had ethics course No ethics course Largest grouping To be adversary of government To set the agenda To influence public opinion To discuss national policies To investigate government claims To develop cultural interests Second largest To analyze complex issues To discuss national policy To set agenda To influence public opinion To give voice to citizens Third Largest To entertain To develop cultural interests To analyze complex issues To get the news out quickly To stay away from unsubstantiated claims Fourth largest To appeal to the widest audience To entertain To appeal to the widest audience Endnotes [1] Tomorrow's Broadcast Journalists, A report and recommendations from the Jane Pauley Task Force on Mass Communication Education, originally published September 1996 by the Society of Professional Journalists. The report is available on the SPJ's Web site, www.spj.org. All materials were taken from the online version. Paul Davis and Dhyana Ziegler were the authors of the task force report [2] A transcript of a panel discussion at AEJMC Convention in Chicago in 1997 is available on the SPJ Web site. [3] The inventory was developed by Milton Rokeach in his book, The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press, 1973. The inventory is used in several contexts including career and relationship counseling, [4] Byung Lee and George Padgett, "Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Mass Media Ethics Course," Journalism Educator, Summer 2000, p. 37. [5] Surlin, S. H. "Value System Changes as a Result of Media Ethics Courses," Journalism Quarterly, 1987, pp. 564-568, and Jay Black et al, "Effects of a Media Ethics Course on Student Values: A Replication and Expansion," paper presented to the national convention of the Association for Education in Mass Communication and Journalism, Montreal, 1992. Surlin used Canadian students; Black students at University of Alabama. [6] David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s: U.S. News People at the End of an Era, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996. [7] Weaver and Wilhoit, p. 136.