Several participants from last weekend’s Future of Journalism conference are beginning to blog. While I sit here in my pajamas, sucking my thumb (as all good bloggers do!) and pondering the topic by my lonesome, I wanted to share with you two good post from people who’ve already weighed in.
Jean Folkerts, dean of Carolina’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication, disagrees with a proposal that would create what she calls “an elite model of journalism education” and she calls for a more “egalitarian approach to journalism.”
Jen Reeves, New Media Director at KOMU-TV and associate professor at the Missouri School of Journalism, provides a good straight summary of the proceedings.
David Arida, a fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center and director of the Citizen Media Law Project, says that a comment during a conference panel that “news organizations should start charging a penny or two to everyone who links to newspaper content … should have sparked vigorous discussion of how the Internet has fundamentally changed the creation and distribution of news, but it didn’t.”
Meanwhile, a few folks who were not there have also begun to weight in with what I would characterize as “healthy suspicion.”
Jeff Jarvis, of the City University of New York’s Graduate School of Journalism, criticizes the lack of “streaming, live-blogging, or other blogging from the event.” (PS – Congrats on the Tow grant to create a “Center for Journalistic Innovation” at CUNY. I’ll be watching with interest.)
Jay Rosen, on Twitter, used the conference as a news hook to reprise his criticism of Neil Henry, the U.C. Berkeley dean who was a panelist there. Rosen also alluded to concerns he has about reasons that the Carnegie-Knight group disinvited him from an earlier gathering.
Thinking about the Jarvis and Rosen posts, it makes me wonder if I’ve mistitled this one. Perhaps it should be “More on the Future(s) of Journalism”…