{"title":"A Belated Submission to the Select Committee on the Future of Public Interest Journalism","authors":"J. Vine","doi":"10.1177/1326365X17728829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Submissions to this year’s Select Committee on the Future of Public Interest Journalism pointed out that journalism tertiary education—students under the guidance of experienced and well-respected journalism practitioners—is in a position to help revive investigative and civic journalism. As Edith Cowan’s Kayt Davies (2014) pointed out as far back as 2014, public interest journalism practised in tertiary journalism programmes could potentially be funded through bodies such as the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the research grants system. Such revenue sources not only transcend the business model but also exist at a relatively acceptable arm’s length from the government. However, research—journalism or otherwise—is ineligible for ARC funding without academic research ethics committee approval. Unfortunately, the process of applying for approval from a committee, whose terms of reference are guided by an academy-approved, government-developed document (i.e., the National Statement), is so offensive to journalistic ideology that it renders the whole concept of public interest journalism in the university sector untenable. This essay examines the National Statement and draws similarities between its values and beliefs and professional journalism ideology (as articulated by the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), the Australian Press Council, the Dart Centre for Journalism and Trauma and the Hunter Institute for Mental Health). It then explores inbuilt flexibilities in the National Statement that offer journalism as a research methodology, a means of maintaining its independence. It then finishes with an updated survey of how journalism programmes around Australia negotiate the conflict between academic research ethics and professional ideology while engaging in practice-based research. In short, this essay explores options for the revival of public interest journalism that are acceptable to both academy and journalism sensibilities.","PeriodicalId":43557,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Media Educator","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1326365X17728829","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Pacific Media Educator","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1326365X17728829","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Submissions to this year’s Select Committee on the Future of Public Interest Journalism pointed out that journalism tertiary education—students under the guidance of experienced and well-respected journalism practitioners—is in a position to help revive investigative and civic journalism. As Edith Cowan’s Kayt Davies (2014) pointed out as far back as 2014, public interest journalism practised in tertiary journalism programmes could potentially be funded through bodies such as the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the research grants system. Such revenue sources not only transcend the business model but also exist at a relatively acceptable arm’s length from the government. However, research—journalism or otherwise—is ineligible for ARC funding without academic research ethics committee approval. Unfortunately, the process of applying for approval from a committee, whose terms of reference are guided by an academy-approved, government-developed document (i.e., the National Statement), is so offensive to journalistic ideology that it renders the whole concept of public interest journalism in the university sector untenable. This essay examines the National Statement and draws similarities between its values and beliefs and professional journalism ideology (as articulated by the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), the Australian Press Council, the Dart Centre for Journalism and Trauma and the Hunter Institute for Mental Health). It then explores inbuilt flexibilities in the National Statement that offer journalism as a research methodology, a means of maintaining its independence. It then finishes with an updated survey of how journalism programmes around Australia negotiate the conflict between academic research ethics and professional ideology while engaging in practice-based research. In short, this essay explores options for the revival of public interest journalism that are acceptable to both academy and journalism sensibilities.
期刊介绍:
Asia Pacific Media Educator is an international refereed journal published twice a year by SAGE Publications (New Delhi) in collaboration with the School of the Arts, English and Media, Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts, University of Wollongong in Australia. The journal follows international norms and procedures of blind peer reviewing by scholars representing a wide range of multi-disciplinary areas. APME focuses on generating discussions and dialogues among media educators, researchers and journalists. Content ranges from critical commentaries and essays to research reports and papers that contribute to journalism theory development and offer innovative ideas in improving the standard and currency of media reportage, teaching and training specific to the Asia Pacific region. Papers that integrate media theories with applications to professional practice, media training and journalism education are usually selected for peer review. APME also carries a Q&A section with book authors. APME takes conventional book reviews to a more creative level where reviewers directly engage with authors to understand the process that authors take in researching and writing the book, clarify their assumptions and pose critical questions.