I’m all for constructive dialog. But I’m also against a convergence that subordinates journalism to marketing. The two are not the same, and converging them subordinates the former to the latter.

I’ve worked in marketing communications during a very long break in my career as a journalist. Returning to journalism from marketing communications was a great relief to me.

What should be converging are media, not journalism and marketing. The principles of journalism go far deeper, and are far more important, than ink-stained shirtsleeves.

I see by the Medill Journalism index page that it’s still about journalism, and that what’s being converged are indeed media. Integrated Marketing Communications is a different heading and a different field. That’s good. (A separate matter: The page is an extra-fancy Microsoft .asp one, and renders terribly on my laptop running Firefox — a triumph of design over utility.)

But the Medill School of Journalism is no more. Journalism is now a program. That’s fine. But not as fine as it was.

Which is another way of saying that I second what Heath Row says above.

The Dean has done a terrible job of managing the process, but we must remember that the world of journalism, media, advertising, PR, etc have changed dramatically. That doesn’t mean to shuttle the IMC program over to Kellogg (they don’t want it anyway) or to drop it with some ridiculous Church-State diatribe.

Much like the NYT, FT, WSJ, Christian Science Monitor or even Slate – the communication products created, sold, and consumed today are a different beast with many more heads and hands.

Let’s see some constructive dialog on convergence rather than more moaning over the loss of 3 martini lunches or ink-stained shirtsleeves.

Personally, I think I would have been put off by a joint journalism/IMC name or program focus. The two don’t make the most comfortable of neighbors, and frankly, as you’ve noted, the encroachment of IMC raises some serious issues about the journalism being taught.

Naming the school to include IMC would be a nice tip of the hat to Don, and he does deserve attention and respect for his work, which is highly relevant, but there are other options that would be more accurate and less concerning. Take, journalism and communications. That could embrace media studies, marketing, advertising, journalism, and other practices and professions quite comfortably.

I think that would work better than Sean’s suggestion of journalism and media studies because it’s more active and practice/trade oriented.

But had Medill done journalism and IMC so explicitly in 1991? I might very well have gone to IU instead.

(Go Cats!)

My old program at Georgetown has a good name. Communications, Culture and Technology. Interesting use of cross-discipline studies to examin the modern media environment.