Unlike most areas of study, journalism is not developed with a textbook

Should our goal as teachers be to help students focus deeply on a limited range of topics? That is the "depth over breadth" argument.

Or are there more benefits from wider learning that doesn't go into much depth but that at least acquaints students with a wider world and more varied options? That would be the argument of E.D. Hirschs' Cultural Literacy. It was published in 1987 but seems as relevant as ever.

I was thinking about this basic argument as I watched the Grammy Awards Sunday night. I had a passing familiarity with a few of the artists and no knowledge at all of others, but found myself enjoying the performances while adding to my "cultural inventory." I could at least engage superficially in any conversations where some of those award winners are mentioned... or just not sit there glassy-eyed and unresponsive. I am no expert on Olivia Rodrigo, and wouldn't even recognize her music beyond one tune, but I would at least know she is a singer and not a basketball player. That's something.

One of the benefits of wide knowledge is that we can at least follow along in many conversations, though we are not "experts" and aren't able to go into the depths of analysis that some can offer. Those "experts" are often called upon by journalists to provide the deeper background that readers may want.

Journalism is not something you study so much as "do." Journalism is a series of practices and professional standards and procedures, but the idea of a journalism student spending hours poring over a dense textbook seems unnecessary and even irrelevant.

Journalists need to learn by doing, though it is nice to have a teacher/adviser who can provide guidance and share some best practices. That's why many introductory journalism classes begin with some quick instruction on how to interview sources, how to structure questions, and how to take notes (or properly record interviews). 

But discussing and practicing on classmates quickly becomes boring. Time to go out and visit a classroom or a club meeting or a sporting event and then interview a few people. If students come back with little to write about, that is a crystal clear indication that more work needs to be done on reporting skills. And sometimes students just need to get over a natural shyness or uncertainty.

Here's what most young reporters quickly realize: people LOVE to be interviewed, particularly if they are accustomed to obscurity -- and that would be most students. Think of how few times in school when a teacher truly wants to know a student's opinion. Most questions asked in school are designed to produce predetermined answers, just as a standardized test would do.

But a student journalist is seeking to learn something that could be of interest to readers when sitting down to talk with a source. Journalists tend to be "cyclical experts," digging deep for specific reasons and in focused periods of time. Then comes the next assignment to cover and the journalist becomes an "instant expert" in THAT topic or issue.

The philosophy of reporting that works best begins with curiosity. It begins with an acceptance that the reporter does not know everything already and seeks new insights, details or anecdotes. This philosophy does not resemble the "talking heads" on TV or podcasts, many of whom are playing more off their own personalities and experiences, and then creating arguments that don't have much support in terms of facts.

A kid who reports on the sophomore baseball game seeks to become somewhat expert on that particular sport, team, and game... certainly learning far more than a reader who was not able to attend the game. 

For any new adviser trying to help students become better reporters, here's an open secret: Get them out of the classroom talking to people they don't know all that well, and do it as early as possible.

The first few times will be hit and miss, but they are like rough drafts. We can't improve a piece of writing until there is a piece of writing, however flawed.