The Hatchet’s editorial board proposes that for SMPA to reach its full potential, journalism and political communication need to part ways.
“The solution is to separate political communication from SMPA once and for all by integrating it into the political science department. That would leave SMPA as a journalism school, free to pursue cutting-edge journalistic endeavors without marginalizing the other half of its identity.”
Commentary from the opinions editors, op-ed columnists and The Hatchet's Editorial Board and its members.
We are expanding the membership of our editorial board to include two non-Hatchet individuals who will focus solely on the staff editorial process.
Ask students what their concerns are with the University, and many will put dining options at the top of their list.
Of the many frustrations felt by GW students, none is more universal then the malice directed toward registration.
As GW students, we can do our unique part to streamline efficacy.
Starting today, the University of Kentucky is a tobacco-free place. It's time for GW to follow suit.
Vol. 106
An Independent Student Newspaper
Serving The George Washington University Community Since 1904
This is a TERRIBLE idea. What makes SMPA a school if note IS the political communication major. Our political communication professors are the top in the field, and lumping them into the poli sci department would be a huge detriment. Yes, the journalism major should be stronger, but separating the poli comm major will not do that. GW is one of the only countries in the country that has a political communication major, and it should not be removed from SMPA to be a political science type of major. Not only this, but poli comm doesn’t stifle the creativity of the journalism major–what does that is the older, traditionally taught journalism professors, if anything, it’s the poli comm professors that are on the cutting-edge of media practices and technology. Maybe you should get all the facts before your editorial board supports just a bad idea.
Were the writers of this editorial ever students in either school? It appears to me that this opinion is more concerned with reputation than it is with education; in my opinion, the prestige of a program blossoms not from a name–i.e. “School of Journalism” or whatever rubbish the editors suggested–but rather from its pure merit. As a recent Poli Comm graduate, I can attest that both programs have merit to boast. I am extremely thankful for the priceless education that I received from SMPA. This education, in fact, was steeped far more in journalism than political science–a curriculum fact that the editors obviously had little time to research. Perhaps they should be more worried about receiving a good education than being the beneficiaries of the reputation that comes from it.
This is a stupid idea.
This is an outrageous proposal. Do the writers know anything about the political communication program? This editorial staff seems to be completely uniformed about the curriculum, professors and research involved in the major. The political communication students and professors are inextricably linked to the journalism program, and could not be more different from political science majors. Get your facts straight.
This is the worst idea i have ever heard here at GW. The writer clearly has an absurdly biased opinion and has never been a part of the stellar SMPA program. It makes me sick to even reread the article. It is a disgrace. SMPA is a premier school at GW precisely because it allows Journalists and POli commers to learn from one another. the two exist in the real world side by side so it only makes sense that they would be educated side by side. It prepares them for the real world. Clearly, the author was frustrated that journalism is going through a transformation and his future career may be in jeopardy.
To push poli comm out of SMPA is utterly rediculous. Making it a part of poli sci defeates the purpose of the program. Poli Sci is far less practical than the poli comm program. The two are and should always be separate.
Having the two careers working together have afforded me amazing opportunities to learn from those that I will be engaging professionally.
Simply put, this editorial is a travesty that should be deservingly discredited.
I can’t say exactly what I want without echoing what’s already been written by others, but your premise is entirely off-base. To say that DC is a journalism hug without acknowledging that it is, even moreso, the political center of this country is naiive. The pairing of the unique political communications major with the journalism program under the same School’s roof was not done unintentionally, as many of the studies overlap. They are complementary. This writer obviously likes journalism more than politics and needs to acknowledge their bias.
I could not agree more with the above posts. SMPA has made a name for itself BECAUSE it is one of the only schools in the country with a political communication undergraduate program. It seems that the individual(s) who wrote the editorial are either not part of SMPA or fail to understand the curriculum. I would urge the author to educate him/herself before making such outlandish claims. There is an inherent difference between political science and political communication. I would urge the author to read the works of Robert Entman, Steven Livingston, Kim Gross and Sean Aday (just to name a few) to understand the rapidly growing and changing field. I would also point out that all of these authors are professors at SMPA and DEFINE what it means to be a political communication major.
This is a complete outrage. First off, Professor Huebner has actually managed to ensure that, while he was director, the voices of students were heard and worked to make requirements for students in either SMPA major across BOTH fields. All of the professors in the school are versed in both media and its practical applications, and to suggest that the journalism program could succeed without some of these professors is entirely ludicrous. Furthermore, if the writer of this editorial had taken the time to do any research, they would have learned that the professors aren’t divided into two “camps.” A vast majority of the professors teach across the majors, teaching everything from editorial writing to political debate. Funny how it turns out media is related to politics…how crazy.
It appears to me that the Hatchet editorial board is just mad that they have to take poli comm classes. However, I think that students in both majors benefit from having to learn about both disciplines. Poli Comm students should have to learn about journalistic norms and limitations and journalism students should learn about the implications of journalism on public opinion. Yes, there are divisions in the journalism program over theory v. practice, but that has nothing to do with poli comm being in SMPA.
It seems like the same poster is posting under different names.
Yet another editorial from the Hatchet created solely to incite the anger of their fellow students. I will not dignify the words of those who have done insufficient research and who are simply writing by the seat of their pants, using their own ignorant beliefs, with a lengthy response.
So here’s a terse one: WRGW is better.
Worst. Editorial. Ever.
I would like one person to give me a good reason why the Poli Comm program can’t be just as effective as a section of a different school. The editorial does not suggest getting rid of Poli Comm, it suggests moving it to a place where it is more appropriate – a suggestion that I, personally, completely agree with. Political Communication is by its very nature an academic major, and there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be grouped in with other programs of its kind.
Believe it or not, there are a lot of SMPA students that came to GW for reasons that have nothing to do with politics. Separating the two majors in a way similar to what the editorial suggests would be a good way to diversify and improve our journalism program, while still maintaining the high level of the Poli Comm program. This may be DC, but that doesn’t mean everything has to have a political flavor.
What everyone seems to be forgetting is that the official names of the 2 majors in SMPA are journalism and mass communication, and politcal communication. As a JMC student, I am finding that this balance between pure journalism, expanding mass communication studies and technologies, and a little bit of political communication studies (only one course requiered) to be a well-rounded curriculum that could prepare me for many different career choices, not just a journalist. Perhaps a better solution than to split up SMPA, one of the university’s gems, would be to instead divide the JMC major into J, and MC. Although I believe current JMC students have the courses and professors available to them (many still involved in their various fields) right now to break into whichever sector of journalism they desire, perhaps this split would allow for more classes to be introduced into both new majors.Don’t split up SMPA, expand it!
I wasn’t going to post anything as all my opinions were very eloquently written up by previous people. However, the post above by Nicholas has stoked my ire again.
I honestly don’t understand how someone can think that political communications and political science are more similar than poli comms and journalism. Obviously he has never taken a class in either and simply believes that because both have the word ‘political’ in their title they must be one and the same.
As someone who took both SMPA classes as well as PSc classes whilst at GW I can tell Nicholas, the Hatchet’s editorial board and anyone else who holds their mistaken position that there is a world of difference between the two. I can also tell them that in my job as a staffer on a Parliamentary campaign here in Britain, barely a day goes by where I don’t have some interaction with the media or use one of the valuable practical lessons I learnt from the fine professors at SMPA.
Nicholas is right in one aspect, Poli Comms is an academic subject. But it also a practical one, and one that goes hand in hand with the journalism degree.
It is great that GW understands that it holds a unique place in being located in the center of Washington, DC and that therefore it should have an outstanding program preparing it’s students for the kinds of careers that are prevalent in that city.
There are many great universities that have straight up schools of Journalism. But we have something different. Being unique is something to be proud of, not something that should make us say ‘why can’t we be like everyone else?’ Unfortunately the Hatchet’s editorial board is too blind to see this.
For the record, I am a current SMPA undergrad and have taken several classes both in Political Communication and in Journalism.
You all may think that the main advantage of keeping Poli Comm in SMPA is because of this supposed “interaction” that takes place between the majors, but the reality is far from that. Journalism majors take Poli Comm classes because they have to, and vice versa. A “schism” is exactly the right way to describe it.
And pertaining to Andrew’s last point: If taking steps to improve our journalism program makes us “just like everyone else,” then by all means give me the kool-aid.
No need to repeat what’s been said by 99% of the people who have read this piece of garbage, only that I agree with them and (what a surprise!) not with the Hatchet.
How about we move Journalism to CCAS and keep SMPA solely for the policomm major??
Makes just as much sense.
(meaning no sense at all, if you didn’t get the sarcasm)
As a professor in the School of Media and Public Affairs (SMPA), I want to respond to the Hatchet’s April 9th editorial suggesting that the political communication major should be moved out of SMPA. I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that the journalism program suffers from being in the same school as a political communication program. The claim that neither program can flourish if they are together within SMPA is wrong. To the contrary, our strength lies in our focus on the intersection of journalism and politics. (After all, Washington, DC is journalistic mecca precisely because it is first and foremost a political mecca, an obvious point that your editorial overlooks). It is precisely the integration of political communication and journalism in Washington DC that makes SMPA strong, distinctive and special. The School provides its students with the opportunity to take courses with renowned scholars and award winning journalists. It recognizes that preparing students to work in media and politics in the 21st century requires both practical skills and a broader theoretical orientation. In the end, students in both majors receive a far better education because of their exposure to both disciplines. We are a premier institution for the study of political communication and political journalism precisely because of the unique mix available in SMPA. A call to tear the school apart fails to recognize the school’s core strength.
Frustrated about taking irrelevant courses as a JMC major? Advocate for separating SMPA from CCAS instead (as stated above). JMC and PCM students would be far better served to have less rigid math & science requirements than to cut out a few, heavily related, communication courses from the other SMPA major. Also, GW could then spring for more SMPA advising resources. SMPA professors are expected to play too heavy a role as advisors when also responsible for answering to hundreds of students each. Poor advising structure and understaffing poses a much greater problem to JMC majors than a few hundred PCM students sharing their classrooms.