Editor’s Note: This interview has been condensed for clarity

Garry Gilbert has had a whirlwind of a career and life, to put it lightly. 

Gilbert smiled as he explained his coming of age in the flower power generation, pointing to the ideals of peace and love that guided him in his youth. 

He then went on to work in the golden age of print journalism – when “All the President’s Men” wasn’t simply an old film aesthetic, it was breathing reality. Typewriters, cigarettes and corduroy suits may seem nostalgic now, but they were once the trademarks of the profession.

After years in journalism, Gilbert became a journalism instructor, thus shifting his career from being a journalist to teaching the next generation of journalists. For those lucky enough to have taken his classes, it’s an experience they don’t take for granted.

On March 30, The Oakland Post sat down with Gilbert to talk about his life, his experiences in journalism and the current state of media.

On a more personal note, The Post will miss him dearly. He has consoled many distressed reporters, helped young journalists manage tricky ethical situations and served as an all-around calm and supportive presence in a frequently chaotic newsroom.

Q: Let’s start from the very beginning. How did you first end up in journalism?

A: I knew very early on, when I was 12 years old, that was what I wanted to do. My father was a minister, and he expected me to follow in his footsteps, but he also brought copies of the Free Press home every day, and I couldn’t wait to see what was in the news. 

I was particularly interested in sports … I wanted to be the star point guard for the men’s basketball team, but I was short and not very gifted athletically, so I figured out pretty quickly that I would be better off as the voice of the Bulldogs, not the starting point guard.

Q: Are there any fond memories, funny moments, weird interviews or funny assignments that stick out from your experience working in a newsroom?

A: Nothing that pops into my mind. I was extraordinarily fortunate to work in what I now see as sort of the end of the golden age of ink on paper and newspapers. We don’t need newspapers anymore. Technology has changed. We have the best system invented so far for the collection and delivery of news. 

But working for newspapers was really fun, the camaraderie, the feeling that you would get after doing something that was an important story, and you feel like you got it right, and you sent it out to your audience, and you got positive feedback, or sometimes negative feedback. Working in a newsroom is terrific.

I left newspapering in 2006 after about 35 years. And I consider myself, again, extraordinarily fortunate that I, thanks to Jane Briggs-Bunting, had an opportunity to spend the next 20 years teaching. 

Both of those, newspapering and teaching, all you want out of life is a sense of purpose, right? Isn’t that the most important thing is to feel like, every morning, when you get up, you’ve got a reason, you’ve got a sense of purpose. I felt like working in a newspaper and then teaching fulfilled that need for a sense of purpose.

Q: You just talked about the transition from journalism to teaching. What originally led you into teaching or working at Oakland University? What was that transition? Are there any similarities or any differences?

A: I never thought about teaching until Jane, who was the chair of the Department of Communication and Journalism here, which is now Communication, Journalism, Public Relations and Advertising. I took her media law class as a non-traditional student in 1995, easily the most difficult class I ever took. 

And after that, I developed a friendship with Jane, and she offered me an opportunity to teach an intro to journalism class as a lecturer once a semester. And that’s the first time, I thought, “Wow, this is kind of fun.” Then in 2006, the newspaper where I was working had been sold three times in the last eight years, and I was being asked, basically, that my job had become finding ways to do more with less. I never really got comfortable with letting people go. And then Jane threw me a life preserver and offered me the opportunity to go to Michigan State to teach full-time.

She said, “You’re going to have a heart attack and die, and nobody’s going to care at your newspaper.” So I went to Michigan State as a visiting instructor. A full-time position opened up here in 2007, and I was able to come here on a one-year deal, and here we are, almost 20 years later.

Q: Journalism has changed so much, especially within the last few years. Are you hopeful for the state of journalism? What’s your opinion on what the field is going to be like?

A: It’s very easy to get discouraged about the state of the world. We have never needed quality, fact-based journalism more in our country’s history than we do right now; however, we have a situation where at least one-third of our audience doesn’t believe anything that we say is right. We’ve got a real credibility problem. There is still, I think, an audience out there that wants factual information and wants and needs journalists who can explain to them what’s going on in the world. I’m really worried about how we’re going to pay for it, though.

Those of you who are thinking about careers in journalism, are you going to get paid? There’s maybe one quarter of the audience that is willing to pay for that access to that proprietary content at the very moment when we really, as in the history of our country, have never needed good journalism more than we do right now. How are we going to pay for it if the audience isn’t willing to pay for it? 

Q: With that approximately one-third of people who don’t care to read or watch the news, they often rely on social media to receive that information more than published journalists who dedicate their lives to this work. What can journalists do to convince that one-third that quality journalism deserves their attention?

A: I’m a student of American History and a student of the media. If you look at our history, there has always been about one-third of the country that was out of step with the other two-thirds. The women’s rights movement, about a third of the country opposed it. Slavery, about a third of the country was in favor of slavery. It’s very rare that our country is united on these kinds of things. 

Now, there is still an audience out there that wants quality content, fair, accurate reporting. I take some consolation in that, but also there’s an audience that is of science deniers, of anti-intellectualism that scares the health economy, and I don’t know how we reach that audience. 

There have been news organizations that are deliberately pandering to that audience by giving them the content that mirrors their worldview, because they have found a way to make money doing that that doesn’t serve the public good.

Q: As journalists, we have an obligation to report both sides, but sometimes it is difficult to do that with an abundance of misinformation. How do we balance reporting all sides, but also report the truth?

A: Good question. This is made particularly difficult with the prominence of social media today. What’s the goal of social media? To drive traffic to get more page views? You can do that by deliberately spreading disinformation. You can generate a lot of clicks, and it’s profitable. So it’s never going to stop because, I mean, we see people who are making a lot of money by deliberately misinforming people. 

Q: There is a rise in social media, but also in AI. Do you think there will come a time when journalism is officially able to outpace social media and AI? Or do you think we’re essentially doomed from here?

I don’t think we’re doomed. I’m always hopeful. Holly would say I’m naive. She tends to be more realistic about this stuff than I am. 20 years ago, only a certain number of people who had access to a printing press could publish their thoughts and share them with the rest of the world. Now, anybody can, so that’s a good thing, right? Now, anybody has the ability to connect with the rest of the world. But a lot of disturbed people now can connect with other disturbed people and share their interesting thoughts with one another. 

Q: A large part of journalism is the discourse that occurs between people. What do you notice about today’s discourse? 

A: One of the problems we really have in culture today is the inability to listen, and I think social media may be part of the problem there. We’re always thinking about what we want to say or post to get clicks, and we’re not listening to what other people are saying.

I love social media, but social media rewards those people who are outspoken; those people who are deliberately outrageous and provocative. It doesn’t reward those people who are more thoughtful and who listen to the opinions of others. 

Q: Your wife, Holly Gilbert, is also a professor here at Oakland University and also shares a deep love for journalism. How did you two meet?

A: I met Holly in 1981 at a fundraiser for Detroit Public Television. I remember it very clearly. She has no memory of it at all. It was about two years later that I finally worked up my courage to ask her out, and fortunately, at that time, she remembered it, but then, within six months, we decided to get married.

We got married in 1984, and here we are 42 years later. We’re coming up on 42 years, mostly because we share the same interests, and we have been very fortunate. I always tell people that I was wandering through life unedited before I met Holly. She gave me purpose and reason.

Q: What is the greatest lesson you have learned while being at Oakland University?

A: As far as teaching, I strongly believe that if you can persuade students that you care about whether they’re successful and that you will try to help them be successful, they will do almost anything you ask them to do in the classroom, if they feel like you care about them. That has been what I’ve tried to do in the classroom. 

As far as The Post, Holly and I both very much value the friendships that we have made, the lasting relationships that we’ve made through students at The Post. We do a lot of traveling, and it’s remarkable how many former Post students we meet, like Gayle Issa in London, Alex Cherup in Las Vegas, and AuJeneé Hirsch in San Diego. Sometimes students invite us to their weddings, and they send us pictures when they have children. That’s very rewarding.

Speed round 

Q: Movies or books?

A: Books. I have probably 500 books in our house, and I know my kids are saying, “What are we going to do with Dad’s books when he dies?”

Q: Pasta or pizza?

A: Pasta

Q: Coffee or tea?

A: Coffee. I never learned to like tea.

Q: Call or text?

A: Text.

Q: Sweet or savory?

A: Savory.

Q: Cats or dogs?

A: Dogs.

Thanks, Garry, for tagging along for the ride at The Oakland Post. As you might say, “Cheers!”