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?

Our current moment has introduced a new sense of urgency to the study of history. The current presidential administration, recognizing the political expediency of shaping historical narratives to reflect a narrow, prescribed understanding of the past, has launched multiple attacks on knowledge production designed to eliminate complexity or nuance.

These aren’t the only incursions on inquiry. Myriad state policies have placed limitations on research and teaching related to diversity topics, and colleges and universities nationwide are cutting budgets, reducing the funds available to graduate students and faculty (especially early career) for research and professional development. It’s hard not to grow concerned about the impact of these initiatives on the future study of journalism and mass communication history, not just in terms of the research published and the courses and content taught, but also who conducts the research and who leads the class.

My hope for my term as chair of the History Division is to provide support for not only answering historical questions and promoting the value of historical research methods, but also to provide encouragement for those engaging with the messiness of historical research, especially in the early career stage. It’s easy to silo history away from contemporary media scholarship, but the benefits historical context can offer scholars are immense. I’m excited to see what’s in store in the next series of essays in Journalism History, which so far done a tremendous job of connecting the past to the present and identifying future areas of scholarship in the field.

There’s much to look forward to, despite these disconcerting headwinds. The papers presented at this year’s AEJMC conference reflected diverse and innovative approaches to historical research and an expanded understanding of the field of journalism and mass communication history that is inspiring, exciting, and provocative – and many of them were authored by graduate students. There are several upcoming opportunities for members to present research and research-in-progress, including the Southeast Colloquium and the Joint Journalism and Communication History Conference, returning to New York for the first time in several years.

We’ll be publishing the results of our member survey in the next edition of Clio. This an opportunity to review the division’s work and identify ways that we can better serve our members. If you didn’t have a chance to complete the survey but have some ideas or feedback to share, please send me an email at caitlinc@uidaho.edu.

So, why study journalism and mass communication history?  I’m not sure there’s one, definitive answer. It can be about challenging power structures, unpacking myths and commonly held assumptions, and illuminating previously neglected sources. I tell my students it’s about helping make them smarter, more critical media consumers and producers. I tell my friends and family that I’m drawn to the examination of moments where meaning was constructed, where conclusions weren’t yet reached.

And to my dog? Well, I tell her that I study history because, to a certain extent, it’s there. We just have to be open and brave enough to dive in.

Dr. Caitlin Cieslik-Miskimen
Chair
History Division