Are community newspapers really different?

Cafarella has written what amounts to a wake-up call for many journalism educators. Her paper will have varying degrees of relevance for different educators and different institutions. In some instances, she may well be reflecting the viewpoints of particular educators in particular situations but these same educators, because of institutional pressures and the very pressures of time and limited resources that Cafarella discusses in a suburban newspaper setting, are unable to implement their heart’s desire. For example, they may want to do all the things Cafarella cited, but to meet the academic requirements of their institution as opposed to the training needs of their students they must achieve a balance between the practical and the theoretical, between their own teaching and research performance, and they must be able to cope with the marking load they generate by creating endless practical assignments. Shorthand bobs up in Cafarella’s paper as a hurdle the graduate cadet must clear before being elevated to the status of graded journalist after the one-year cadetship, and I am reminded that arguments about the inclusion of shorthand in tertiary journalism courses has been debated at national and institutional levels for the past quarter of a century. In fact, shorthand is a kind of shorthand for this practice versus theory debate.

Cultural Specific Training in Corruption Reporting for Pacific Island Journalists

Notes that very few journalists have formal training in corruption reporting. Discusses workshops held in 2000 and 2001 on the subject of corruption reporting for Pacific Island journalists. Explains the role of the media as an anti-corruption mechanism and the difficulty journalists face in identifying and sometimes stamping out corruption. Looks at the programs adopted and explains the responses of journalists.

From idola conceptiones to discourse analysis: A response to Bart Crum

Crum's notion of idola as a conceptual fallacy is interesting, somewhat helpful, yet potentially limiting in a critique of research in PE if one is to accept a postmodern or poststructuralist position. In line with a poststructuralist position, a strength in Crum's application of idola is the recognition that research in PE is constituted by the researcher and their social world which, in turn, constitutes the researcher. Limitations to Crum's idola thesis arise when the notion is used to suggest that as a result of the researcher's lack of conceptual clarity, the quest for knowledge or truth about PE pedagogy is undermined as this assumes that meanings can be unequivocal and precede a linear research process. In contrast, this response argues that a priority in research should be to examine how, and under what conditions, particular discourses come to shape PE practices in schools and universities. In a postmodern world, conceptual clarity should not be the goal but rather a coming to understand how PE knowledge and practice is being constructed across sites and contexts.