A journalism student at NYU published a Generation Y-ney piece on PBS’s MediaShift.
The first thing I notice when I walk into the class is that there are 14 girls and two boys. Already NYU is dominated by females, but the journalism department is exceptionally estrogen-infested. Professor Quigley begins by explaining how blogs are becoming more imprtant and asks if any of us have a blog.
One hand slowly rises. It’s mine. (Alana Taylor)
It’s certainly… interesting to have a student publicly evaluate a class in this manner, after the class has been in session for a few weeks. While she is careful to distance her essay from a personal attack on her professor, she complains about the old-media stance of the course, and the program as a whole. Based on the scarcity of student bloggers in this particular classroom, it seems to me that the professor is pitching the class at the right level — though the generic term “blog” is far less familiar to today’s teens than branded bloglike entities “Facebook” or “MySpace.”
My former student, Amanda Cochran, now a grad student at NYU, reacts to Taylor’s piece.
Like Taylor, I am one of the only bloggers in my graduate school class, and I’m looked upon as a novelty. As many of my readers know, blogging was an important part of my undergrad experience. We were on the cutting edge of journalism (and still are) at Seton Hill — as it would seem in light of this report. I know about blogging. I know what I need to do to write a good blog. This ability has enhanced my resume and, more importantly, my understanding of online media and its direction. However, it is true that few other students do know about blogging and its ramifications on their future careers.
Okay, so Taylor made a point. So what? She has done much more harm than good to her career by this stunt. Taylor, looking oh-so-Facebookish in the picture posted with the piece, did invade her classroom, as cited by NYU professor Quigley. However, more importantly, no matter if she isn’t a traditional journalist or not, she violated a journalistic tenet of disclosure to her subjects for a completely unworthy assignment. If I were an employer, I would think twice before hiring her — and that’s enough in this competitive business to stay unemployed. (Amanda Cochran)
Taylor had planned to write a follow-up for MediaShift, but editor Mark Glaser did so instead.
Yes, that’s a very good point.
What kind of a teacher would I be, if I published — either for pay or just to advance my career — my judgments about students in my classes, based on my impressions after the first couple weeks of classes?
Well… er… not counting the time I *did* in fact post a public judgment about a student shortly after I met her.
http://jerz.setonhill.edu/weblog/permalink/1694/
But seriously… in a classroom, I often take a contrary position simply in order to challenge students and provoke deeper intellectual engagements, and I would want students to feel comfortable asking “stupid questions” or otherwise taking risks, without worrying that their classmate will publish what they say.
Taylor was obviously more interested in making a name for herself than she was in making an active contribution to a positive classroom environment.
The idea of a series of columns exploring what it’s like to be a student in a Generation Y class is a good one, and it would be more interesting to read those columns as the course was unfolding. But an “embedded” reporter is not the same thing as an “undercover” reporter. This level of personal criticism verges on slander — of the “Chef Joe can’t cook meatloaf” variety, where “My order of meatloaf at Joe’s Diner was dry last Thursday” is a critical opinion.
Before she published her final assessment, Taylor might have waited until the class was over, at which point she could have approached her professor and classmates for quotes, thus avoiding the problem entirely.
I’ve referred favorably to Mark Glaser‘s work numerous times on this blog, but I really can’t support his defense of Taylor’s actions. A student who doesn’t like the syllabus is free to drop a course, a student who doesn’t like the major is free to switch majors or transfer, and a student who doesn’t like the way a professor teaches is free to say so on the course evaluation at the end of the term. By the same token, I think a professor is within his or her rights to expect a certain type of behavior in the classroom, and a certain type of behavior online.
Fascinating stuff, eh?
I particularly liked, but didn’t include in my blog, the comment by Nathan Rein to an entry on Mashup (where Taylor occasionally writes): http://mashable.com/2008/10/01/alana-taylor-heritage-media/:
“I don’t see how this is a story about old and new media. To me, this is a story about a student violating the trust of her professors and classmates. I’m biased here, being a professor myself who teaches a lot of small seminar-style classes, but I am royally sick of hearing people spouting these stereotypes about how professors just aren’t hip enough to teach today’s students. Personally, if I were teaching a seminar and a student put up a post that humiliated me, personally, by name, on a widely-read blog without discussing it with me first, they would not be allowed back in my classroom. That’s simply a violation of trust, and a classroom requires trust in order to function. Old vs. new media has nothing to do with it.
And — a secondary point — with regard to the ombudsman contacting Alana before publishing comments on the situation — why would he? That’s not the ombudsman’s job. The ombudsman’s job is to respond to complaints from the public. The issue is what Alana published, not whatever she might have to say about it now. Anyone who criticizes Shift Media for neglecting to have their ombudsman contact Alana for comment before responding, is simply mistaken about the function of an ombuds desk.”