“Jazz In China: The Documentary,” chronicles the 100-year story of how jazz—a democratic form of music through improvisation—exists and thrives in China—a country with a long tradition of adherence to central authority.

“Jazz In China” is a documentary produced, directed, and written by Eugene Marlow, Ph.D. based on his 2018 book Jazz in China: From Dance Hall Music to Individual Freedom of Expression (University Press of Mississippi).

The 60-minute award-winning documentary reveals the significant influence of African-American jazz musicians with leading indigenous jazz musicians, sinologists, historians, and jazz club patrons in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou, and archival and contemporary performance footage.

“Jazz In China” was the winner of the 2022 American Insight “Free Speech Film Festival,” and received the “Award of Excellence” from the Depth of Field International Film Festival.

“Jazz In China” will  be an “official event” of the UNESCO-sponsored International Jazz Day, on April 30, 2023.

Many thanks to those who made this event possible:
Curator Leslie Arlette Boyce
Brooklyn Heights Branch of the Brooklyn Public Library
NYFA  “Jazz In China” is a sponsored project of the New York Foundation for the Arts

Back to Top

The Marlowsphere (Blog #149)

It is a truism that laws more often than not lag behind cultural customs especially in times of change, to which we could add in times of rapid technological change. Sociologist William Fielding Ogburn (1896-1959) posited in 1922, for example, the difference between “material culture” and “adjustment culture.” The former refers to technology, the latter to the often lagging response to technological change on the part of members of a culture and its cultural institutions. In other words, technology is the primary engine of progress, i.e., change, and it takes time for people and institutions to catch up to the changes and characteristics new technology brings, especially when it comes to terms and definitions.

In academia adjustments to technological change with respect to programs, courses, and especially terms are more often than not “behind the curve,” never in front of it. Often, there is a tendency to grab on to a new technology well after it has been embraced by early adopters and to describe “new” courses with terms gleaned from the popular media without much aforethought.

I have observed this from direct experience.

In 1988 the Journalism Program at Baruch College (City University of New York) invited me to create and teach courses in video field production and radio news. I was the first professor in the program with a print and electronic media background based on my recently acquired Ph.D. and experience in video and radio production.

In reality, I was hired because the Speech Department (now the Department of Communication Studies) had initiated a course in “Corporate Video” and the Director of the Journalism Program (then a part of the Department of English) didn’t want to be outdone! In other words, inter-departmental competition motivated my being hired. Mind you, this was 1988, a year before (now Sir) Tim Berners-Lee introduced the World Wide Web which, in turn, began the slow but inexorable demise of print journalism. So, in some small measure, the then director of the journalism program (a full professor with a Ph.D. in English Literature, now retired) can be forgiven for not having a crystal ball to peek into the future.

It was not until 2007 (19 years after my hiring) that the department hired a second professor with expertise in electronic journalism. Her specialty was “multimedia journalism.” And it was only until 2016 and 2017 that a third and fourth professor with print and electronic journalism credentials were hired. The latest addition to the faculty has deep experience in podcasting. That’s four professors out of 11 full-time professors in 29 years, even though in this same period the world of journalism had moved inexorably to a greater reliance on visualization (video) and orality (podcasting) via the computer.

There was progress, however. The (now) Department of Journalism introduced a course in “Advanced Multimedia Journalism” following the establishment of a course in “Multimedia Journalism” which I also taught. There’s now two courses in podcasting.

A couple of years ago we were in the throes of a self-review in response to periodic accreditation requirements. One of the department’s “learning goals” (originally formulated in 2013) dealt with “multimedia.” My reaction to reading this learning goal was to immediately feel how out of date and mis-defined it seemed. It had been articulated in 2013 by a professor with no “electronic journalism” experience to speak of. This prompted me to look into the technical definition and history of the term “multimedia.” My search taught me again that all things have antecedents and confirmed that academia is usually behind the curve.

I discovered the “concept” and “term” multimedia is about 60 years old! Yes, it’s that old and it predates the advent of the personal computer. It’s also another example of what’s old is new again.

According to several sources, the term multimedia was coined by singer and artist Bob Goldstein (later ‘Bobb Goldsteinn’) to promote the July 1966 opening of his “LightWorks at L’Oursin” show at Southampton, Long Island. Goldstein was perhaps aware of an American artist named Dick Higgins, who had in 1964 discussed a new approach to art-making he called “intermedia.”

A month later, on August 10, 1966, Richard Albarino of Variety borrowed the terminology, reporting: “Brainchild of songscribe-comic Bob (‘Washington Square’) Goldstein, the ‘Lightworks’ is the latest multi-media music-cum-visuals to debut as discothèque fare.”

But wait! There’s more. Two more years later, in 1968, the term “multimedia” was re-appropriated to describe the work of a political consultant, David Sawyer, the husband of Iris Sawyer—one of Goldstein’s producers at L’Oursin.

The original meaning of “multimedia” kept evolving. In my 1995 book Winners! Producing Effective Electronic Media (Wadsworth Publishing Company) co-authored with Research Associate Janice Sileo, in a chapter entitled “Multimedia” we wrote, “The Microsoft Corporation, in a February 1993 Backgrounder, defined computer-based ‘multimedia’ as ‘the integration of text, graphics, audio, video and other types of information. . . .’.” Further, “Clearly, multimedia has evolved from an integration of various digital, electronic, aural, and visual technologies into an interactive medium for use in the home and the office.” Sound familiar? 1993 is 29 years “after” the term was originally coined. Yet some journalism educators use the term and define “multimedia journalism” as if it were invented just a few years ago!

Clearly, the term “multimedia” has been bandied about and used by journalists and professors of journalism who have no concept of its origin or layered meanings. Further, the term “multimedia journalism” is likewise mis-construed. It should be “computer-based journalism” or “digital journalism. “ If used even more correctly, “multimedia” would also refer to film, broadcast and cable television. After all, these communication media combine sound with pictures and graphics and text of all kinds. This is an example of a more recent generation of professionals ignoring the fact that there are always antecedents.

But to ask these folks to appreciate the abovementioned distinctions might be too much. They perceive they’re in the technological vanguard and don’t want to be disturbed in their academic bubble. They haven’t done their homework. They’re in the caboose of a technological train—with a longer history than realized—whose engine is ahead of them.

©Eugene Marlow, Ph.D. 2020

Back to Top

Marlowshpere Blog (#124)

The last three blogs (#121, #122 and #123) took an overall look at job growth/job prospects for those in the so-called “creative class.” In this blog I take a specific look at those wishing to enter the fields of writing (or the literary arts), editors, and journalism:

• Writers & Authors: +3%
• Editors: -2%
• Journalism: Reporters, Correspondents, and Broadcast News Analysts: -13-14%

To reiterate what I stated in the last blog, if any conclusion can be drawn from the numbers in this group of “creative class” disciplines, it is this: there is an ongoing seismic shift away from the printed word (and what it takes to create works with printed words) towards the dominance of the visual image, generally speaking.

In a way, though, the numbers are somewhat deceiving. As the descriptions below will attest, the significant drop in job prospects for editors, reporters, correspondents and broadcast news analysts is primarily due to the shift away from news-on-paper to news-on-bytes. One need only take a look at the shrinkage in the number of newspapers in the United States as the Internet has grown in penetration to come to the obvious conclusion that editorial and journalism positions have been lost in the print world. And where have they gone? To the online news business.

But there is a major wrinkle. As Scott Timberg readily points out in his book Culture Crash (Yale University Press 2015), the financial aspects of editing and/or reporting online is far different from the legacy print world. In fact, more than a few former “print” professionals are working for far less, some for nothing. It is not a one-for-one shift. There is a true loss of positions and financial wherewithal. And what positions do exist are going to those with multimedia skills and experience, but not necessarily “life” or “analytical” experience—again, a reflection of the shift from the printed word to the visual image.

And there are two other ramifications:

First, it seems to be forgotten that while the visual image has become more dominant that the creation of visual content still requires the written word, i.e., a good television program, film, or live show still requires the written word on a page. And if the written word doesn’t look good on the page—or in this case, on the computer screen—it won’t look good on the television or film screen, or in live performance, regardless of wondrous special effects, costumes, and lighting—the visual aspects.

Second, the loss of journalists due to the loss of print or broadcast venues (and in this context we can include cable news) has longer term ramifications for democracy. The analysis of political and economic events provided by competent journalists for public consumption is part and parcel of the choices an electorate makes come time for elections. As many other organizations have documented, a free press is a necessary major component of a functioning democracy. Where there is no free press—free to observe and comment on the government, both good and bad—there is no democratic process, or, at the very least, there is a pretense of a democratic society.

As with the previous three blogs, the following Job Growth/Job Prospects descriptions are taken directly from the “Occupational Outlook Handbook” (online) of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Projections program.
 
Writers & Authors: +3%
 
Employment of writers and authors is projected to grow 3 percent from 2012 to 2022, slower than the average for all occupations.

Despite slower-than-average employment growth, online publications and services are growing in number and sophistication, spurring demand for writers and authors with Web and multimedia experience.

Some experienced writers should find work in the public relations departments of corporations and not-for-profit organizations. Others will likely find freelance work for newspaper, magazine, or journal publishers, and some will write books.

Strong competition is expected for most job openings, given that many people are attracted to this occupation. Competition for jobs with established newspapers and magazines will be particularly strong because employment in the publishing industry is projected to decline.

Writers and authors who have adapted to online media and are comfortable writing for and working with a variety of electronic and digital tools should have an advantage in finding work. The declining costs of self-publishing, the growing popularity of electronic books, and the increasing number of readers of electronic books will allow many freelance writers to have their work published.
 
Editors: -2%
 
Employment of editors is projected to show little or no change from 2012 to 2022, as print media continue to face strong pressure from online publications.

Despite some job growth for editors in online media, the number of traditional editing jobs in print newspapers and magazines is declining and will temper overall employment growth.

Competition for jobs with established newspapers and magazines will be particularly strong because the publishing industry is projected to decline in employment. Editors who have adapted to online media and are comfortable writing for and working with a variety of electronic and digital tools should have an advantage in finding work. Although the way in which people consume media is changing, editors will continue to add value by reviewing and revising drafts and keeping the style and voice of a publication consistent.

Journalism: Reporters, Correspondents, and Broadcast News Analysts: -13-14%
 
Employment of reporters, correspondents, and broadcast news analysts is projected to decline 13 percent from 2012 to 2022. Employment of reporters and correspondents is projected to decline 14 percent while employment of broadcast news analysts is projected to show little or no change. Declining advertising revenue in radio, newspapers, and television will negatively impact the employment growth for these occupations.

Readership and circulation of newspapers are expected to continue to decline over the next decade. In addition, television and radio stations are increasingly publishing content online and on mobile devices. As a result, news organizations may have more difficulty selling traditional forms of advertising, which is often their primary source of revenue.

Declining revenue will force news organizations to downsize and employ fewer journalists. Increasing demand for online news and podcasts (audio or video digital media files that can often be downloaded from a website) may offset some of the downsizing. However, because online and mobile ad revenue is typically less than print revenue, the growth in digital advertising may not offset the decline in print advertising, circulation, and readership.

News organizations also continue to consolidate and increasingly share resources, staff, and content with other media outlets. Reporters are able to gather and report on news for multiple media stations owned by the same corporation, while television stations reuse news and material already gathered by other stations and reporters. As consolidations, mergers, and news sharing continue, the demand for journalists may decrease.

Following a merger or content-sharing agreements, some news agencies may reduce the number of reporters and correspondents on staff. However, in some instances, consolidations may help limit the loss of jobs. Mergers may allow financially troubled newspapers, radio stations, and television stations to keep staff because of increased funding and resources from the larger organization.

Reporters, correspondents, and broadcast news analysts are expected to face strong competition for jobs, because of both the number of workers who are interested in entering the field and the projected employment declines of both occupations. Those with experience in the field—experience often gained through internships or by working for school newspapers, television stations, or radio stations—should have the best job prospects.

Multimedia journalism experience, including shooting and editing pieces, should also improve job prospects. Because stations are increasingly publishing content on multiple media platforms, particularly on the web, employers may prefer applicants who have experience in website design and coding.

In addition, opportunities will likely be better in small local newspapers or television and radio stations. Competition will be particularly strong in large metropolitan areas, at national newspapers with higher circulation figures, and at network television stations.

If you have any questions or comments about this or any other of my blogs, please write to me at
meiienterprises@aol.com.

Eugene Marlow, Ph.D.
June 15, 2015

© Eugene Marlow 2015

Back to Top

The Marlowsphere Blog (#93)

Some inventions are incremental improvements on pre-existing technologies. Over long periods of time, e.g., tens of thousands of years, the tribal fireplace of yesteryear, for example, bears little technological resemblance to the gas or electric stove of today. Yet, upon even cursory analysis, both technologies provide heat and the ability to cook food. On the other hand, the tribal fireplace also kept predatory animals at bay; the gas or electric stove does not, but the latter stove gives the user much control over the amount of heat required to cook food when it is required. The timeframe between the tribal discovery of the use of fire and the invention of the gas, then the electric stove is at least tens of thousands of years, perhaps a lot more. 

Other inventions create tectonic cultural shifts in the human social environment in a much shorter period of time. One such invention is the World Wide Web. Without this technology no one would be reading this blog and I wouldn’t have the opportunity to publish it to be read by a potential international audience.

Sir Timothy John “Tim” Berners-Lee is the British computer scientist best known as the inventor of the World Wide Web. He made a proposal for an information management system in March 1989, and implemented the first successful communication between a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) client and server via the Internet sometime around mid-November of the same year. The influence of Sir Berners-Lee’s invention is still working its way around the planet. Of course, it should not be forgotten that without the development of the computer—mainframes, mini-frames, and personal—the “mouse,” fiber optics, and a host of other hardware and software developments associated with the computer, the World Wide Web Berners-Lee invented would not have any meaning whatsoever. It is a perfect example that every invention has its antecedents and coincident technologies, just like the fireplace has evolved over time into the gas or electric stove. 

In addition to virtually every aspect of life—marketing, public relations, politics, science, medicine, education, dating, business, music distribution, and many, many more applications—the World Wide Web has had a major impact on journalism. For example, it is a fact that as more and more consumers, especially younger consumers, of news and information gravitated to the web as their primary source, the impact has been greatly felt in the realm of print journalism, especially newspapers. Over one generation the number of newspapers in the United States has diminished steadily. There’s a long list of reasons, too numerous to articulate in this blog. Suffice it to say, the characteristics of the Internet—a 24/7, speed of light medium that incorporates text, graphics, motion video/film, and sound, and the ability to communicate globally via email—is very attractive to both consumers and marketers alike. I have previously referred to it as the “shrinkwrap medium.”  For more details on this, my 1997 book WebVisions (Van Nostrand Reinhold) covers many of the aforementioned issues. Print magazines, broadcast radio and television, and cable television appear to have survived the Internet onslaught—so far.

Clearly, though, the future of journalism is more electronic than print. There is a brief scene in the 2002 Tom Cruise movie “Minority Report” in which the main character, Chief John Anderton, gets off a future style subway.  As he does one can see riders reading “newspapers” with pictures that have motion characteristics. Of course, these newspapers are probably made of hybrid materials other than newsprint in order to accommodate the motion graphic elements of news and feature stories and advertising.

This leads logically for a commentary on the emergent field of “multimedia journalism,” a.k.a. “digital journalism.” First, let’s define “multimedia journalism.” According to The Multimedia Journalist:  “The most obvious and common definition is the collective use of many media types–such as text, audio, graphics, animation, video, and photographs–to convey information.” (http://www.themultimediajournalist.net/?page_id=330).  Again, here we are talking about information in various media conveyed by means of computer-based technology.

This is an ample definition. It squares with the “shrinkwrap” characteristics of the Internet. In other words, the Internet, for journalistic purposes, allows journalists and publishers (and bloggers like myself) to use a multiplicity of media to tell a story; and this can be done 24/7 at the speed of light. While the speed with which stories can be conveyed on the Internet is fraught with its own problems and challenges, what is germane in the context of this blog is the “perceived” difference between “multimedia” or “digital journalism” and what has now become “legacy journalism.”

Remember the fireplace/gas-electric stove analogy at the beginning of this blog? It applies here to the comparison between “multimedia/digital journalism” and “legacy journalism.” Legacy journalism refers, of course, to what came before the World Wide Web evolution: print (newspapers and magazines), photography, broadcast radio, broadcast television, and cable television. All these antecedents to web journalism have been subverted by the growth of the Internet on a global basis—although it must be pointed out, perceptions to the contrary, that a little less than 40% of the world’s population currently has access to the web. Give it another generation, though, and that number will probably double.

It is my view that consumers, journalists, and educators alike are under the impression that somehow “digital journalism” is something new and requires a whole new set of rules and techniques. To a degree this is correct, but it is not the journalism that is new, it is the digital characteristics of the Internet technology that is new. Journalism is still journalism, regardless of the conveyance of the news and/or information. A print story is a still a print story, whether in a “printed” newspaper, or on the newspaper’s web site. A radio news story must still adhere to the demands of news for the ear, whether broadcast via a radio station or network, or on the station or network’s web site. A broadcast or cable news story must still respond to the opportunities provided by these electronic media to incorporate text, sound, graphics, and studio and/or field reporters, live or recorded whether broadcast or distributed on cable, or on a web site.

So what is different? What is different is how the legacy media are programmed into the web, via such programs as WordPress, I-Movie, FinalCut X, GarageBand, and many, many other software programs. What is different is that journalists are now required to not only do the heavy lifting with respect to researching a story, getting interviews, gathering graphics, arranging for and obtaining interviews, and drafting the story—regardless of medium—they now must also train to use a panoply of software programs to post the story on the web.

For seasoned professionals, educators, and journalism students alike this is the new challenge—in addition to learning journalism techniques, everyone must now learn the technology of getting the story (as in using a video camera, for example) and posting a story. In one sense, this is a situation that provides for professional growth. In another sense, it is also an opportunity for the owners of journalistic venues (e.g., publishers) to get more for less. Journalists are increasingly required to know how to make journalism in various media, but this also results in an opportunity for owners to create profits in an increasingly competitive information and news market.

In effect, the growth of the Internet has put more of a professional burden on journalists while at the same time many journalistic functions have been eliminated. One example, before the advent of highly portable, high quality video cameras, broadcast and cable reporters used to have a crew of several members to report a story; similarly with respect to editing. Now video reporters in many small and medium-sized markets are required to know how to shoot and edit the story themselves without benefit of an experienced crew. The division between reporting and the technology of getting a story to an audience via the web has been greatly blurred.  

It is a fact that in the last few years one-fifth of all journalists have been eradicated, one could say purged from the field. Those who remain and those students who are motivated to enter the field face a reality that electronics is the future, although that future will not be as fast in coming as the headlines suggest. It only seems that way. Journalism educators, too, face the same challenge. The problem is learning the new technologies and technical requirements seems to have become the dominant aspect of journalism education, to the detriment of the need to also tell a good story by answering who, what, why, when, where, and how, regardless of medium.

It is a balancing act that requires both experience and technical skill. But what happens when a younger, future generation brought up in a primarily non-print journalism world goes to work or becomes part of the education system whose mission it is to train the next generation of journalists? Will the thousands of years of collective cultural experience telling the stories of the tribe orally, in print, or via video be lost, or will it even matter? Will the knowledge of how to make fire without gas or electricity be forgotten?     

Please write to me at meiienterprises@aol.com if you have any comments on this or any other of my blogs.

Eugene Marlow, Ph.D.
January 6, 2014  

© Eugene Marlow 2014

Back to Top