A humdinger of a course
A deep dive into a 1929 newspaper correspondence course from a 2024 distance educator
Last week, I did a deep dive in the Newspaper Institute of America’s 1929 booklet, “Journalism Your Future and You”1 to see how this group talked about the job of newspaper journalist almost 100 years ago.
Honestly, one of the things that made reading this so hard on the first pass is that it’s not immediately clear to our 2024 eyes what this book is supposed to be. The first 12 pages clearly describe the benefits of a job in newspapers. There’s the glamorous-looking picture of Park Row in New York City, pictures of different Titans of Industry who were men themselves, once, essays about how a job in newspapers can help prepare you for all sorts of careers.
There’s an illustration, titled “The Basis of Good Writing,” in which newspaper writing is the trunk2 and everything from play-writing, fiction and adventure articles to industrial surveys, theatrical advance news and sport writing.
It’s worth noting that this tree illustration is the only time sport(s) and sport(s) writing is mentioned at all in this booklet. It’s an interesting commentary on the place of sports writing and sports journalism within the larger newspaper world in 1929.
It’s not until after the tree illustration that the purpose of this booklet comes clear. There are headers with some of the 10 questions that led off the book (Is metropolitan experience vital to success as a writer? Is it possible to get newspaper training without working on a newspaper?), and the answers to those questions are telling.
And Newspaper Institute training - the direct copy-desk method, exclusive with the N.I.A. - is as available to the prospector in Alaska as to the bank clerk in New York.
Suddenly, I got it.
This is a correspondence course.
A brief detour: Correspondence courses have existed since the 1700s and were at their most popular in the late 19th century. The idea was simple — students received course materials in the mail and sent assignments back to be evaluated. This was popular for shorthand and other secretarial skills, and there were many schools and programs set up for miners, railroad workers and iron workers.
It made sense for the time. In 1920, only 16.8 of Americans who were 17 years old graduated high school (that number’s in the mid-80s now). So a vast majority of people were not even high school graduates. Higher education was not a thing for most people —in 1920, only 4.7 percent of the college-age population was enrolled at a college, and that was an all-time high.
The Newspaper Institute of America owes its existence to the fact that most aspiring journalists and authors are already out in the world, on their own. Their time and money are too precious for them to think about going to college; all of them may not have had a high school (or equivalent) education. But they want to write.
Without leaving either their work or their homes, they can turn to the Newspaper Institute for experience as well as instruction, for one year or less instead of for four years - and the total cost of NIA training doesn’t equal a month’s living expenses at a resident college.
So that’s the point of the booklet. It’s to sell you not just on the benefits of a career in newspapers, but also in getting that career specifically through Newspaper Institute of America training.
As to the total cost of N.I.A. training well, funny story.
It never actually says how much this training costs. There’s actually no information about how to actually sign up for course at all! There is no form to fill out, no registration information, no address to write to to get more information, no “write brains on a 3X5 card and send it to …3” or anything like that.
This is clearly an informational brochure but there is nothing in this brochure that allows people to actually act on the information that’s being provided to them. It tells people all about a course of study without giving them an ability to actually sign up for the course or any information about the cost.
Here’s where my fun begins. Because when you Google “correspondence course,” you get this graphic on the side of the search.
Distance Education.
Which is … huh, that’s what I do.
And while I like to think there are significant differences between our graduate programs at an accredited journalism school at an accredited liberal arts University and the mail-in program run by what is essentially the Newspaper industry’s lobbying company, in essence, yeah, distance learning is the modern-day correspondence course.
But also, it means I know a thing or two about developing a remote program teaching journalism. So, let’s evaluate the N.I.A’s program.4
Overview
So the course is built around what’s called “The Copy-Desk Method.” The idea is that the copy desk is “the newspaper’s nerve center.” It’s where the magic happens in 1929 newspapers - where coverage decisions get made, layout is decided, headlines are written, and editing happens.
That’s the premise underpinning this program. There’s no classroom. There is no “mass instruction.”5 You do the writing exercises, you send them in, and you get feedback from a copy editor, just like they do in a New York newsroom.6
Everything you write is edited by the institute copy desk just as it would be by the copy desk of a New York newspaper — grammar corrected, material rearranged for proper emphasis and instructions marked for the printer.” Instead of being sent back to the press, “your corrected story goes back to you with a personal message of explanation or suggestion from the Managing Editor. You are in constant touch with headquarters.
The Program
As a correspondence source, students in the Newspaper Institute program of study get the following:
A leather loose leaf binder
Nine Complete Text Sections
Twelve Extension Lectures
Editor’s Code of Ethics
Eighteen Story Writing Assignments
Dictionary of Writing Terms
Manuscript style book, etc.
Ten issues of The Copy-Desk Flash, the Institute’s monthly publication which carries complete up-to-the minute tips on markets for your writing
There are nine sections to the course (the text sections mentioned above), which I think are roughly what we could consider units in a modern course. A rough overview of the units are:
Tour a newspaper, introduction to the “spirit of the profession” and code of ethics.
What is news, how it’s obtained, how it’s handled by staff.
“Actual newspaper work, learning and experimenting with story structure.”7
Who, what, when, where, why; story leads, story structure.
Sentence structure, grammar, The New York Times stylebook.8
The art of feature writing, be it “sob sister stuff” or “heart throb”9
The copy desk - reading proofer marks, writing headlines; A libel lecture from James McAlpin Pyle.10
Working for a newspaper in a small town.
Dramatizing the news. The 36 “fundamental dramatic situations.”
All in all, it seems fine. It’s a bit of a slow build - not writing until the third unit, not getting to the five Ws until the fourth unit, not getting to basic grammar and style until halfway through the course seems like a long wait. But at the same time, if these are students who are coming to newspapers from other professions or fields, the slow build makes sense. I do like the focus on reading great examples in the third unit. That’s a smart way to develop interest and motivation before students start their own stories.
In all, there are 60 individual parts to what they call “The Training Schedule.” Each of the nine sections listed above have their own texts to read. There are a couple of tests and other assignments early on. There are also 12 “extension lectures ” that are written by newspaper professionals about a variety of special topics. It’s kind of the 1920s correspondence course version of a guest speaker or a masterclass. The coolest sounding one is “Off the Beaten Path” by Russel M. Crouse, then a columnist for the New York Evening Post, and is “an interesting and suggestive description of his manner of gathering and preparing the material which he writes.” The one that jumps off the page is Miss Eleanor Stanton from The Sun who’s lecture is, I kid you not, “Editing a Woman’s Page.”
Then there are the stories. Students write a total of 18 stories, and they may be typewritten or handwritten in ink or pencil. Which mattered, because of course, access to a typewriter in 1929 was not something to be assumed.
These assignments have been so prepared as to give full play to your tastes as well as to your natural ability. Perhaps you write of a diamond robbery; or of a zoo comedy. Perhaps you write the story of the mother whose baby girl drowned in the bathtub, a bobbed-haired bandit story, the storm at sea, the meeting of the Board Alderman, or many other typical varieties of news events, familiar and otherwise
The text sections of the course come to you at stated intervals, but the manuscripts you submit are edited and returned to you immediately upon receipt - usually the same day. There is no wondering or waiting; action is the essence of good newspaper work.
There’s no additional info about the writing assignments, but it seems like information is supplied to students, and then students write a story based on that and send it back. And while that certainly stands out, it makes sense. That’s one of the challenges in creating an online journalism course. When I’m teaching in a classroom, I can tell my students to go cover a game on campus, or this on-campus event. We’re all in the same location. But in distance learning, when your student population is widespread, it’s a challenge.
But it’s noteworthy that there’s no reporting involved here. It is all about writing. Which keeps with what I wrote last week - newspapers were a career where you could learn to write and then do things with that skill, not creating a career in journalism.
Anyway, students write their stories, which are returned with “criticism” from copy editors. The text repeatedly says that they are edited and returned immediately upon receipt, often the same day.
“Your constant contact with real newspaper men, who are working with you on your own news stories and pointing the way to improve your ability, brings you the full flavor of the newspaper office and the newspaper tempo - the atmosphere that surrounds nearly all of today's best writing.”
OK, let’s review:
Overall positives
The emphasis on writing is really good. That holds as true today as it did in 1929. The wise man said you learn to write by writing, and you do that in this program. Writing 18 stories in a relatively short amount of time will make you a better writer.
The turnaround time on grading, if it’s as described, is pretty great. Puts me to shame, to be honest.
It’s pretty wide-ranging and seems to give students a good introduction to newspaper life.
The program is very based in the real world. At its core, this is vocational training. This is designed specifically to prepare a student for a career as a newspaper writer. And while I am a fan of liberal arts education and think it’s valuable, I see the allure of a program like this.
Overall negatives
There is almost no reporting done by students and very little reporting discussed in the nine units. This course is designed to make you a newspaper writer, but being a reporter is a very different job and I don’t know how well this prepares you for that.
It’s a bit of a slow build. If you’re eager to learn how to write, you don’t really do that for a few weeks, and I can see how that could be frustrating.
It’s a solitary program. There’s no cohort, no connection with other students. You do the work on your own. And one of the things that makes distance learning effective is when students are able to communicate develop a bond with their cohort.
Related to that, the grading is done by nameless, faceless “copy editors.” Not teachers trained in giving feedback, or ones who have seen your work evolve week to week. It’s “copy editors.” who are providing “criticism” of each story. Not feedback, criticism. And it seems like a different editor reads a student’s work each time. Consistency is so important in student feedback, and that’s not possible here.
It goes without saying, given the historical context, but this program is overwhelmingly male and EXTREMELY white.
There’s no information on cost or how to actually register.
There is very little digital content.
VERDICT:
Look, it’s easy to look back at old journalism programs and find the stuff to dunk on. But even grading on a historical curve, this seems like a pretty solid course. If someone wanted to learn the basics of news writing and about life at a newspaper, this course does that. Given the historical context and technological limitations, the Newspaper Institute of America training seems like a solid choice.
But you don’t have to take my word for it.11
The book concludes with 13 testimonials over four pages from satisfied students. It concludes with a full-page testimonial from one Miller Holland from 2746 Prince Street in Berkeley, California.12 Miller is a self-described newspaperman with 12 years experience who took the N.I.A. course after seeing an ad in Editor and Publisher
“Let me say right here that the course is simply splendid. It is a humdinger.”
Who am I to argue with Miller Holland?
Still no commas.
Describing this illustration is one of the wildest things I’ve ever done as a writer.
If you get this joke, we can be friends.
Now, this should absolutely go without saying, but because it’s the internet in the year of our Lord 2024 and some dude (because it’s always a dude) is going to make some kind of comment about how this is a 100-year old program and we shouldn’t judge it based on today’s standards, let me say … this is all for fun.
I mean, it kind of is mass instruction given the, you know, nature of the program.
They really lean heavily on the “just like in the big city of NEW YORK” vibe.
This unit “contains brilliant examples of practically all varieties of news stories” which is honestly pretty smart.
Fun fact: The AP Stylebook wasn’t publicly published until the 1950s.
No idea. None.
He of the “vocational seidlitz powder.”
Another reference which, if you get, we can be good friends.
The writers’ full addresses were printed beneath their names. Privacy didn’t exist in 1929. Also, Miller’s house no longer exists. The current house at 2746 Prince Street was built in 1935 and has a Zillow value of $2.1 million.