For the last few months, one question has loomed large in my teaching, research, and, to some extent, my sense of self: What is the role of history in the field of journalism and mass communication? Students ask it, non-history colleagues ask it, grant reviewers and journal reviewers ask it, my friends and family ask it, and I’m pretty sure my dog would ask it if given the opportunity. But it’s not just one question that follows me around – it’s the follow-up, too: Why does history matter? Why bother?

I’ve long struggled with articulating why history matters to journalism and mass communication, in part because to me, it has always seemed so obvious. As with many media historians – and those media scholars whose research engages historical questions and uses historical methods to some degree – I’ve always been drawn to the idea of exploring what once was. It can be hard for me to articulate why history matters without deploying cliché after cliché. There’s a cyclical nature to history and contemporary events, I’ll say. History matters because context matters, I’ll write. If we don’t try to understand the messiness of the past – in all its ugliness and complexity – how can we possibly make sense of what’s happening now or understand what’s at risk?