Journalism’s practitioners and the academy: Must they eternally live in different universes?

Journalism and the media have a direct impact for both good and ill on the health of the public discourse, yet practitioners and the academy are as divided as were late medieval barber surgeons from those who studied the relationship between practice and the health of patients. There are both valid and invalid reasons for this – the valid reasons derive from the simple fact journalists and scholars have different roles in the public sphere; and the invalid reasons derive from stubbornness bordering on arrogance on both sides of the divide. Few practitioners see the academy as relevant to them; few accept the need to listen to, understand and perhaps act on informed critique. Few scholars are either prepared to make their work timely and relevant to current issues or to abandon the intimidating formats and incomprehensible language that alienates practitioners. Yet there are numerous examples, including the Public Journalism movement in the United States, the Reuters Institute in Oxford and even the BBC’s review system that demonstrate how practitioners and scholars can be persuaded to inhabit – even briefly – the same universe.