In the January 19, 2007 issue of the The Chronicle of Higher Education's "Chronicle Review," former Ohio State University student newspaper adviser Sonya Huber-Humes wrote:

Once when I was mulling over a revision to my syllabus, I overheard a student editor telling a writer that one of his ideas for an article was stupid. It would never work, he said, for some reason or another. In his voice, I could hear time pressure motivating his irritation: "That story is going to be huge and complicated. You're going to get lost in it, and while you're busy extracting yourself, who is going to help me fill Pages 1, 2, and 3?"

What got to me was that I heard my own reporter's voice in his tone. He made hard-nosed-reporter comments — like "That source is lying. That's crap. It's all about the money. She just wants good PR. He's a politician." — that shut off experimentation or multiple interpretations in the interest of getting the story out.

Such cynicism is often a necessary and painful adaptation to the pressures of an understaffed newsroom. But while I am heartened by journalism schools' new emphasis on subject-driven, in-depth reporting, I worry that the focus on advanced analysis encourages students to think they know everything. Yes, reporters must be able to wrestle with complex subjects, but too often the role of expert that reporters tend to adopt results in patronizing news coverage that distances itself from and even disparages the events and people being reported on.

Click here to read Huber-Humes' article in its entirety on the Chronicle Review website.