This paper analyzes John Merrill's argument that professional standards in journalism are largely a myth and, more importantly, a detriment to the field. Merrill identifies two competing forces shaping journalism education: academically driven standardization, which stifles creativity, and the influence of former industry professionals who bring real-world flexibility to journalism schools. The paper examines Merrill's conclusion that over-reliance on academic structures undermines journalistic independence, and traces his support for the view — drawn partly from Louis Lyons — that passion and on-the-job learning outweigh formal credentialing.
The paper demonstrates argument reconstruction — breaking a source's position into discrete claims, examining the evidence offered for each, and then identifying what the author leaves unstated. This technique is essential in media studies and critical analysis courses, where evaluating an author's logic is as important as summarizing their conclusions.
The paper opens by establishing Merrill's core claim (professional standards are a myth), then moves sequentially through his two sub-arguments (standardization and practitioner educators), before presenting his overall conclusion and the evidence he marshals to support it. It closes by naming the unstated assumption underlying his entire position. This linear, claim-by-claim structure suits short analytical papers focused on a single source.
In journalism, the term professionalism has often been considered a standard that everyone in the media should follow, rooted in a common set of goals and values about communicating current events. This assumption has given journalists a seemingly unique place in society, where the public expects them to adhere to a defined set of professional standards and guidelines. In his analysis, John Merrill argues that the idea of professional standards in journalism is nothing more than a myth. Because there are no clearly defined standards or examinations that a person must meet in order to enter the field, all that is truly required is the ability and intellect to write effectively. This observation is the heart of Merrill's claim: that imposing professional standards on journalism does more harm than good (Merrill, n.d.).
Merrill identifies two possibilities that may be shaping the career field. The first is the standardization of journalistic styles, a process in which educators who have worked primarily in academia create new norms for the profession. These educators tend to emphasize traditional forms of journalism education — proofreading, adherence to proper format, and conformity to established structures. Merrill views this as problematic because it penalizes individual creativity, which is one of the core principles that allows writers and editors to adapt to a fast-changing news environment. When creativity is diminished, the media is more likely to play a passive role in reporting: journalists follow standard formats, recycle familiar story ideas, and leave more provocative or unconventional stories untouched (Merrill, n.d.).
You’re 39% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.