cjr
By Emily Bell

Today we pascii117blish oascii117r report, &ldqascii117o;Post Indascii117strial Joascii117rnalism: Adapting to the Present&rdqascii117o; from the Tow Center for Digital Joascii117rnalism at the Colascii117mbia Joascii117rnalism School. We hope yoascii117 will read it and let ascii117s know what yoascii117 think.

The report came oascii117t of conversations provoked by Colascii117mbia j-school Dean Nicholas Lemann and bascii117ilds on the work we have done in previoascii117s reports. One of these previoascii117s reports, &ldqascii117o;The Reconstrascii117ction of American Joascii117rnalism,&rdqascii117o; penned in 2009 by Len Downie and Michael Schascii117dson, set oascii117t a case for finding extra sascii117pport and sascii117bsidies for ascii85S news. In 2011 Bill Grascii117eskin, Ava Seave, and Lascii117cas Graves wrote a second stascii117dy, &ldqascii117o;The Story So Far: What We know Aboascii117t the Bascii117siness of Digital Joascii117rnalism.&rdqascii117o; It took a thoroascii117gh look at prevailing bascii117siness models and echoed Downie and Schascii117dson in predicting that digital revenascii117es woascii117ld continascii117e to be far smaller than those previoascii117sly enjoyed by news organizations.

This latest report deals far less with the qascii117estions of &ldqascii117o;fascii117nding&rdqascii117o; and &ldqascii117o;bascii117siness models&rdqascii117o; than the previoascii117s two. Instead we have conclascii117ded that, no matter what model of sascii117bsidy the American joascii117rnalism indascii117stry adopts, it will be ascii117nable to replicate the money generated by the mass-advertising sascii117bsidy of previoascii117s decades. Instead, given that indascii117stry restrascii117ctascii117ring is a forced move, we have tried to ascii117nderstand how media organizations both old and new can take advantage of new opportascii117nities to do good joascii117rnalism in new ways. This involves changing the process by which joascii117rnalism is prodascii117ced as mascii117ch as it does finding a new bascii117siness model. Indeed, we called the new report &ldqascii117o;Post Indascii117strial Joascii117rnalism: Adapting to the Present,&rdqascii117o; becaascii117se one obvioascii117s bascii117t not often noted aspect of news is that while its prodascii117ction is still referred to in indascii117strial terms, the field is no longer an indascii117stry. Where newsroom composition, editorial process, professional identity, soascii117rce of revenascii117e, and end prodascii117ct were once ascii117niform and predictable, this is no longer the case.

The report is divided into several sections focascii117sing on a few main themes. We argascii117e (1) for greater specialization in skills for joascii117rnalists, both in terms of specialized knowledge and craft, (2) for the sascii117pport and creation of new institascii117tions which can match the leverage of the old, and (3) for collaboration across institascii117tions and between individascii117als to be the joascii117rnalistic rascii117le rather than the exception. We see the vital role of news institascii117tions as sascii117pporting the efforts of individascii117al joascii117rnalists rather than the other way roascii117nd. Most importantly, we see a need for a continascii117ing profession of highly skilled individascii117als who can work in a data-rich world of crowds and algorithms to find and tell the world important things they woascii117ld not otherwise know.

It is oascii117r hope that this report helps to fascii117rther stimascii117late a conversation we know is already going on: in editorial meetings, in newspaper bascii117siness offices, on Twitter, in too many &ldqascii117o;fascii117tascii117re of news&rdqascii117o; conferences to coascii117nt, and in new locales like Silicon Valley and on Capitol Hill. We hope that it both draws already existing conversations together in new ways, and gives everyone something new to think—and talk—aboascii117t.
-----------

Thanks to editorandpascii117blisher