In conversation with Morten Brænder, former head of Center for Journalism Studies
For almost seven years, Morten Brænder was the familiar face at the welcome function for the EMJ students every year when a new cohort arrived in Aarhus in September. A man of discipline, he had two things to remind the newcomers of: first, that excessive idealism blocks progress; second, that Danish is more than a language — embrace it while you can! Since 2018, Morten had been the Head of the Center for University Studies in Journalism and the Vice-Head of the Mundus Board of Studies for the EMJ at Aarhus University, Denmark. His successor, Thomas Olesen, assumed responsibility in February 2025. During Morten's tenure, the programme underwent fundamental changes and faced numerous challenges, including Covid-19 and the suspension of flagship scholarships due to the EU reapplication bid for two consecutive years. In this interview, he reflects on the unique experience as the director and shares some of the takeaways from all the challenges he had to manage. He is interviewed by Shekufe Ranjbar, the student assistant for communication and marketing from the 2023–2025 cohort.
SR: Hello Morten, thanks for participating in this interview.
I’d like to start with some foundational information: When did you begin this role, and what occasion led to your selection for this position?
MB: Hello and thanks for having me. I started as Director in 2018. I had taught in the programmes before (both the Danish MA in Journalism and in Mundus Journalism) and I knew the work quite well, as I had been “liaison officer” between Political Science and the Centre for several years.
SR: Overseeing a university programme in journalism comes with a wide range of challenges due to the ever-changing nature of journalism as both an academic discipline and as a profession. What were some of the most significant challenges you faced during your tenure?
MB: Definitely the stretch between leadership on the one hand and management on the other. On the same day, Bettina [Andersen, EMJ coordinator] and I could practice “high politics” and try to settle a conflict at the University level, and then also attend to hands-on questions about communicating upcoming deadlines. Doing either is often rewarding. Doing both is sometimes hard.
SR: How did you overcome those challenges or found a way to cope with them?
MB: By trying to be a “significant other” for somebody else. That can be a student, someone else from the management, a colleague or an external stakeholder. To whom does not really matter. What is important is the feeling that you make a difference.
SR: Now, let’s talk about the EMJ itself. How did the programme change over the years under your leadership? You may talk about the curriculum or any other aspect you find more significantly transformed.
MB: Formally, we changed study regulations twice during my seven years as Director. I think that both shifts improved the programme. And although something unexpected always happens when you rock the boat, I am really happy that we now have co-taught courses, electives, the possibility to offer a number of students credits for project placements, and that we managed to increase the number of international partners from 3 to 13. But what really makes me proud is the way we were able to deal with the Pandemic. To my knowledge, no other international programme, anywhere, was able to run with full student turnout throughout these years.
SR: Naturally, attachments develop over long years of staying in a certain position. Now that you’re a bit distanced from the EMJ, is there anything you miss, or think you might miss, about your time with the programme?
MB: I will not say that I miss COVID. I don’t miss working from home, never-ending zoom-meetings or frustrated colleagues. That said, the urgency of the situation gave room to step in and make decisions that made a positive difference for others, now and here, and looking back that definitely made those years stand out in a positive way.
SR: Finally, what is your future vision for journalism as an academic field in general and for the EMJ in particular?
MB: We have been changing the programme’s study regulations concurrently due to the changing realities journalism is facing in terms of technological, political and market-related shifts. I am sometimes in doubt which of these challenges to journalism I fear the most. At the moment, my personal 'favourite' is probably the lurking threat of democratic fatigue and the way it translates into infotainment. While I am also worried about straightforward totalitarianism, totalitarianism is a very visible and tangible threat. It is much more difficult for politicians and journalists to mobilise society to counter the erosion of liberal values from within.
SR: Before we finish the talk perhaps you would want to briefly tell us about the position you transitioned to after the EMJ. Is it of an administrative nature or are you back to full-time researching?
MB: I am now member of the Direction of the King Frederik Center for Public Leadership at the Department of Political Science. In that capacity I am responsible for research in military leadership, a field of study that I have been pursuing throughout my academic career. Offhand, the leap from journalism studies to military studies may seem insurmountable. That has not been my experience, and so far, I have been able to draw heavily on my experiences from running the Center for University Studies in Journalism.
SR: If you'd like, feel free to share a memory with our readers; it would be a lovely way to conclude the conversation.
MB: Sure. In March 2020, as rumours of a flue-like disease were increasingly taking over the news agenda, the formal cooperation between Mundus Journalism and our new LMU-partner was already in place. Still, Thomas Hanitzsch [LMU] and I realized that it would be difficult to get practicalities up and running without further knowledge about the Mundus Journalism-programme on their side, and further knowledge about LMU in Munich on our side. So, we decided that something needed to be done. I caught a train to Munich. We had dinner. I was shown around Campus and introduced to Thomas' colleagues. We talked things through. Then I went home ... Two days later, Europe locked down. In hindsight, Thomas and I realised that if we had not taken this step, things would probably have evolved very differently. Practically, the Pandemic meant that it would have been difficult to set up an onsite meeting for months ahead. But most importantly, by meeting in person we established a shared understanding that we both wanted this to work, and then we made it work. This served to me as a neat example of one of the most important lessons I learned as Center Director, and one of the things I have taken with me into my new job: If people want things to work, they will work, regardless of the formal obstacles. And vice versa. Formal rules are of little use if the will to cooperate is not in place.
SR: This was truly an engaging conversation. I enjoyed listening to you. Thank you so much for sharing the experience with readers!
MB: Thank you and good luck.