Do students' attitudes toward the news media reflect the declining stature of the press?

A new Gallup survey reveals that half of college students polled are willing to restrict press access to protests on campus, if the students don't wish to be covered or would prefer to communicate with the outside world directly via social media.  The survey also shows a student population secure in its own sense of free speech rights.  A majority admittedly feel that a PC climate on their campuses stifles some from speaking their minds.  All the same, in their views about their own generally robust free speech, press and assembly rights, they appear to have more confidence in the First Amendment's continuing vitality than do we older Americans.

As one whose first job was with a now-defunct afternoon daily newspaper way back in 1969, and who has lived to see newspapers give way to TV, which in turn has given way to the internet and social networks as the principal news media, this student attitude is not so very surprising.

Real investigative journalism has become a rarity.  So-called "objective" reporting is now little more than giving two talking heads with opposing viewpoints --- no matter how crackpot one or both might be --- equal time.  And reporting is now mostly infotainment.  As examples I offer the "Today" show and Vanity Fair magazine.  "Today" still covers some real news stories and Matt Lauer still occasionally interviews public figures, just as Vanity Fair still publishes some investigative journalism.  But with two of the last three Vanity Fair covers devoted to female Hollywood stars, it's hard to say the magazine is still dedicated to genuine journalism anymore than is Lauer's program.

When I earned my MA in Journalism at Kent State in the 1970s, newspaper reporting was the area of specialization that attracted the majority of the students.  Today, Communication Departments are teaching their students the multi-media skills necessary to survive in a "journalism" career.  Last year I was interviewed by a reporter from a Philadelphia station.  Immediately after the on-camera interview, he posed me for a picture, which he immediately tweeted.  He candidly informed me of how much he hated his job, which provided absolutely no opportunity for the  in-depth reporting that had attracted him to the profession.  What I see our communication programs primarily producing are grads who can create snappy video clips but who usually have little depth of understanding or interest in public affairs.  'Shallow and glitzy' is the new order of the day.

So why should we be surprised if the new breed of students activists, who seem to be emerging on our campuses, have little respect for the so-called news media and have greater confidence in telling their own stories to the outside world?