IT'S REALLY THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

At my old alma mater, the natives are getting restless:

But the push for modernization has also raised the ire of some professors, particularly those closely tied to Columbia’s crown jewel, RW1. “Fuck new media,” the coordinator of the RW1 program, Ari Goldman, said to his RW1 students on their first day of class, according to one student. Goldman, a former Times reporter and sixteen-year veteran RW1 professor, described new-media training as “playing with toys,” according to another student, and characterized the digital movement as “an experimentation in gadgetry.”

Goldman’s official take on the situation is considerably more measured, and he insists he is not against new media. “They need to know the ethics and history and practice of journalism before they become consumed with the mold they put it in, because the mold will change — the basics won't,” he says, explaining his outburst.

The new media kids were among the most multitalented and dedicated group of students at the Columbia J-School. They also happened to be among those who did the best reporting. My friend Renee Feltz completed as her master's project a website that reported on the rather extensive connections between Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and the Corrections Corporation of America, which has made millions by building detention facilities for undocumented immigrants. I had another friend, Lam Thuy Vo, who did her master's project on the migration of Burmese refugees to New York City. She now works for The Wall Street Journal.

Goldman is correct when he says "the basics" won't change, but I'm not naive enough to believe that's what he meant when he said "fuck new media." He's merely expressing an attitude that is pervasive among some old heads at the J-School, that there's something inherently superior about print reporting. The problem is that quite clearly, fewer and fewer people are getting their news that way.

It's a ridiculous assertion. The web is just a medium; it can be as substantive as The New York Times or as worthless as Tiger Beat. Content is content, no matter the medium. Broadcast was once also "new media," and there were doubtless print reporters at the time who viewed it with similar contempt. It's exactly that contempt that is hampering the press' transition to new technologies and contributing to the collapse of news organizations all over the country. Matthew Yglesias compares it to saying "writing books is an experiment in playing with printing presses." I tend to think it's something like insisting on fighting with bows and arrows while your enemies are coming at you with laser cannons and photon torpedoes. Journalists, editors, and owners who share Goldman's attitude are actively hastening the demise of news organizations. If Goldman wants to go down with the ship, that's fine, but his students shouldn't have to suffer because their professor is an ignorant luddite.

Hopefully they won't, because Goldman's views don't reflect those of the J-School on the whole, which has excellent new media professors and facilities. Goldman's view is that of a small and occasionally vocal minority. But that doesn't change the fact that he just embarrassed the entire school, and more than one talented new media reporter who is thinking about applying to Columbia will probably end up saying "fuck Columbia" and sending their application elsewhere.

UPDATE: I should add that my friends from J-School occasionally tell me stories about working at publications where veteran reporters scoff at the idea that they have to learn video or web skills, and express similar sentiments to those of Professor Goldman. These are people who don't want to keep their jobs. The J-School's purpose is to prepare its students for careers in journalism; slamming new media is exactly the opposite of that. New media skills are essential for anyone who wants to actually get hired for a journalism job in this country these days. The old heads can complain all they want, but we're all new media now. 

-- A. Serwer