Second, Medsger points out that, in theory, communication studies is considered a more inclusive arena than journalism, when, in fact, most mass communication faculty are narrowly trained as experimental or survey researchers. For instance, teaching mass communication survey courses requires a broad understanding of diverse media industries and cultural issues. It is not coincidental that the responsibility for such courses falls to media generalists, often with journalism backgrounds, rather than to communication researchers schooled in quantitative methods. In its way, journalism is a broader, more generous field than is communication studies. Whereas communication scholars signify the triumph of academic specialization, journalists and journalism educators may be the last of the generalists.
Journalistic writing remains fundamental to areas as dissimilar as public relations and history.
When we do it right, our students learn the basic research skills applicable to all sorts of subject matter and the writing competence that will benefit them the rest of their lives. Third, and most importantly, Medsger rightly identifies the confusion that many journalism educators experience regarding their institutional status. This symptom has a root cause, lodged in good journalism's fundamental opposition to the often unacknowledged disease plaguing most universities-bad academic writing. Unfortunately, the kind of clear, accurate, and familiar language that good journalism requires has either become obsolete at many institutions or represents a threat to academic specialization. This problem is endemic to both the social sciences and to humanities research.