“post-industrial journalism”- a new columbia report examines the disrupted news universe

7/30/2019 Post-Industrial Journalism- A new Columbia report examines the disrupted news universe

1/15

2/26/12 Post-Industrial Journalism: A new Columbia report examines the disrupted news universe Nieman

emanlab.org//post-industrial-journalism-a-new-columbia-report-examines-the-disrupted-news-univ

Explore Harvard's Nieman network NIEMAN FELLOWSHIPS NIEMAN LAB NIEMAN REPORTS NIEMAN STORYBOARD

Pushing to the future of journalism A project of the Nieman Foundation at Harvard

NOV. 27, 2012, 12:31 P.M.

ByJoshua Benton

Post-Industrial Journalism: A newColumbia report examines thedisrupted news universe

The report, by C.W. Anderson, Emily Bell, and Clay Shirky, surveys the new opportunitiesavailable to individual journalists and news organizations old and new. Here are some of its

highlights.

Theres a big new report out from Columbia

Journalism School this morning, entitled Post-

Industrial Journalism: Adapting to the Present. Its

authors are a sort ofJustice League of New Yorkjournalism schools and will be recognizable to

anyone whos been following the future-of-news

world in recent years: CUNYs C.W. Anderson,

Columbias Emily Bell, and NYUs Clay Shirky.

Its good! It aims to bring together a variety of threads around where news is headed at

the levels of the individual journalist, the legacy news organization, and the startup and

paint a picture of the forces pushing adaptation on each. Its a less prescriptive document


2/15



than its spiritual predecessor, Len Downie and

Michael Schudsons 2009 report The

Reconstruction of American Journalism; as the

authors state in their introduction:

This essay is part survey and part manifesto,

one that concerns itself with the practice ofjournalism and the practices of journalists in

the United States. It is not, however, about the

future of the news industry, both because

much of that future is already here and because

there is no such thing as the news industry

anymore.

Chris, Emily, and Clay do a really great job of

drawing on a broad range of examples to draw what, to me, seem like smart conclusions

on where were headed. You should read it! But just in case you dont have time for the

full 122-page report, Ive pulled out some of the passages I found the most interesting a

few of which Ill comment on or quibble with.

If theres one overarching critique Id make of the report (admittedly, after a single quick

read), its that its focus on the practices of journalists creates a blind spot when dealing

with the practices of the audience. That, of course, is a natural byproduct of the fact a

report cant focus on everything, and it makes sense that journalism educators would want

to focus on the production end of journalism. But for me, the most interesting

developments of 2012 have been shifts in news consumption the reframing of the

article, the rebundling of the news package, and the reflowing of news into new delivery

mechanisms. Aggregators and platform builders are getting smarter and more attuned to

the ways people want to get news.

The report doesnt use the words iPad, tablet,Android, or smartphone all of which are

key to the redefinition how news gets consumed. The word mobile does appears a

handful of times, but only in passing. These shifts on the consumption end, driven

primarily by the adoption of new devices and platforms, are already having big

implications on news production, and theyre only going to grow. (Its also the sector

where capital is flowing these days.) News organizations and journalists need to be in that

battle. More about that below.

Page 2


3/15



We start with five core beliefs:

Journalism matters.

Good journalism has always been subsidized.

The internet wrecks advertising subsidy.

Restructuring is, therefore, a forced move.

There are many opportunities for doing good work in new ways.

Adjusting to No. 4 the reality that change was coming, like it or not, and the status quo

wouldnt work was, I think, the hardest for news companies to appreciate. We live in a

world where Media Generals CEO could saythat it wasnt until spring 2011 that we

realized the world had changed. Bubbles can be entrancing places.

Page 5

Good journalism has always been subsidized; markets have never supplied as

much news as democracy demands. The most obvious form is indirect public

subsidy: Radio and TV enjoy free access to the airwaves, in return for which

fielding a credible news operation is (or was) the quid pro quo. Businesses are

forced to pay for legal notices in newspapers. Print publications are givenfavorable postage rates.

Page 6

In addition to advertising, many other forms of private subsidy exist. For most

of U.S. history, some owners have been willing to publish newspapers and

magazines at a loss, in return for prestige or influence. Both the New Yorker and

the New York Post bleed red ink; their continued existence in their current form

involves a decision by their wealthy owners that they should not be completely

exposed to the market. These kinds of publications are de facto nonprofits.

Its worth pointing out that The New Yorker, which operated at a loss for many years,

shifted to generating small profits in the David Remnick era. Elite publications like The


4/15



New Yorker, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the Financial Times have

generally fared better than their middlebrow peers in the Internet era their quality and

unique value proposition stands out amidst the newfound mass of media.

Page 8

On top of all this, of course, is heightened competition. As Nicholas Carr noted

in 2009, a Google search for stories about the U.S. Navy rescue of a U.S. cargo

ship captain held hostage by Somali pirates returned 11,264 possible outlets for

the story, the vast majority of them simply running the same syndicated copy.

The web significantly erodes the value of running identical wire service stories in

St. Louis and San Luis Obispo.

I understand that last point, but I think reality is a little more nuanced. The chance thatsomeone was reading news sites in both St. Louis and San Luis Obispo is near zero. There

is functionally no competition between them.

If youre approaching the story by searching Google News after the fact then, sure, it looks

like massive duplication. But if you look at it as a reader who has some sense of loyalty to

the paper in San Luis Obispo and loyalty in this case doesnt mean warm fuzzies; it just

means youve found it a useful place to get news having that wire story on its site does

addvalue. It eliminates discovery cost for your reader; it promotes the value of your site as

an editorial filter; it gives you something to put an ad next to.

Of course, thats all subject to a cost-benefit analysis maybe the wire service costs too

much money, or maybe the process of getting that wire story on your site is inefficient and

wastes a web producers time. But the nichification of media shouldnt ignore the fact that

most people dont have the kind of high-intensity media diet that I (and, Id wager, Chris,

Emily, and Clay) have. Most people dont have RSS readers with hundreds of feeds; most

go to only a few news sites a day, if that; most use social media for purposes other than

news filtering. For those more casual news consumers, some duplication is likely welcome

and a decent business strategy for certain kinds of news organizations.

Page 15

The idea of the public has been core to American theorizing about news since

John Deweys famous response to Walter Lippmann in the 1920s. Lippmann

despaired that the average person in a mass society with complex economic and


5/15



technical workings could ever become the kind of informed citizen that most

democratic theory seemed to assume. Dewey, in response, argued that there

were multiple, overlapping publics that could be activated by the emergence

of particular issues. This notion of news outlets serving disparate but

overlapping publics has remained core to their organizational logic.

Page 16

Finally, a note about why we will not be concentrating very much on the fate of

the New York Times. A remarkable amount of what has been written about the

fortunes of American journalism over the past decade has centered on the

question of what will happen to the Times. We believe this focus has been

distractingAny sentence that begins Lets take the New York Times as an

example is thus liable to explain or describe little about the rest of the

landscape.

Co-sign. (Its amazing how many future-of-news conferences end up being discussions

about the Times and NPR because the kind of people who attend those conferences

tend to be Times readers and NPR listeners.)

Page 23

Most journalists, and journalistic institutions, have failed to take advantage of

the explosion in potentially newsworthy content facilitated by the growth in

digital communication. The reality is that most journalists at most newspapers

do not spend most of their time conducting anything like empirically robust

forms of evidence gathering. Like the historical fallacy of a journalistic golden

age, the belief in the value of original reporting often exceeds the volume at

which it is actually produced.

Too many reporters remain locked into a mindset where a relatively limited list

of sources is still relied on to gather evidence for most important stories, with

the occasional rewritten press release or direct observation thrown in. This

insider-centric idea of original reporting excludes social media, the explosion of

digital data, algorithmically generated sources of information, and many other

new strategies of information gathering that we emphasize here.


6/15



That second paragraph, especially, is a really important message. Reading even a decent

newspaper over a long-enough span of time makes it clear how narrow the channels of

reporter interest can be and how limiting their source networks can be.

Page 28

Self-evident as it is, journalists can be much more efficient than machines at

obtaining and disseminating certain types of information. Access and

exclusivity or ownership of a story is created through interviewing people.

Making phone calls to the White House or the school board, showing up at

meetings and being receptive to feedback, sharing views and expressing doubt

all make news more of the drama that James Carey identified as central to the

concept of a newspaper. These very personal and human activities mark

journalism as a form of information performance rather than simply a

dissemination of facts.

This comes in a section where the authors detail the strengths of various kinds of

journalistic actors, including What Journalists Do Better (than machines and social

media). The key advantages of human journalists: accountability, efficiency, originality,

and most intriguingly charisma.

Page 44

Every journalist can now be a publisher. One very obvious side effect of

newsroom automation is the lowering in value and utility of the role of editors.

Visionaries at the top of organizations will still set the tone and editorial

direction for brands, and perhaps each topic will have a specialist editor. Time

saved by the automatic organization and editing of pieces, however,

dramatically reduces the need for editors to oversee every part of the process.

Newsrooms can no longer afford senior staff who do not produce content. Every

news desk editor should at least be aggregating and linking to work both inside

and outside their organization, providing meta-analysis of the process and

sources, following stories through cultivating and recommending sources in

public.

Broadly true, although Id argue that the role of editors is changing more than its losing

value.


7/15



Its more about aggregation and curation the old wire editor job and less about being

another step on the stairway to a storys publication. As news organizations narrow into

niches, the value of a talented editor guiding story selection increases. And as news

organizations start integrating the work of non-journalists more, the ability of a good

editor to slap copy into shape and turn raw material into something recognizably

journalistic is key.

Look at The Huffington Posts masthead I count at least 184 people with the title of

editor. Those people arent doing the same job a city editor did in 1997, to be sure, but the

professional frame lives on.

Page 47

When it comes to news institutions, were telling ourselves a lot of stories at

once. While the stories of decline and rebirth make up the majority ofdiscussion about the future of news, there is a relative gap when it comes to

understanding the third story, that of institutional adaptation. Though the

effect of the internet on the American journalism ecosystem has often been

portrayed as anti-institutional, serving mainly to erode or even destroy

institutional viability, its effect is actually more complex. While the internet has

indeed disrupted many existing institutions, it has also helped usher in many

new ones. Much of the fate of the news business will be decided not by what is

going away, and not by what is exciting and new, but by how new institutionsbecome old and stable and how old institutions become new and flexible.

Page 50

Wed sum up the general lament this way: The presence of process is a bigger

obstacle to change than the absence of money. This conundrum isnt surprising;

as we noted in our definition of institutions, the entire purpose of institutional

arrangements is actually to ingrain and rationalize standardized patterns of

behavior in other words, to make change hard.

This is where the broad literature around change management comes in a field

journalism hasnt historically spent much time engaging with. Institutions are hard to

change. Its also where Clay Christensen and disruption theory come in. His work is pretty

gloomy about the prospects of large incumbents adapting successfully but there are


8/15



examples to follow.

Page 53

In the long-term sweep of history, the 20th century saw news institutions move

from being exciting, muckraking and often scandalous conveyors of usefulinformation and advertisements to the sober guardians of democracy itself. This

is an exaggeration, of course, but it is not an entirely unfair one. The reasons for

this change lie outside the scope of this paper, but they are as much cultural and

sociological as they are economic, and the myth of Watergate marked more the

culmination of a long-term reputational upswing more than it did the

emergence of it. Between roughly 1908 and 1968, news institutions became the

Fourth Estate.

Reputational capital primarily attached itself to journalism as a profession andas a set of institutions, rather than to individual journalists. What this meant

was that, at least in part, the levels of symbolic capital possessed by individual

reporters were as much a function of where they worked as who they were.

Although there are exceptions (I.F. Stone being a particularly prominent

example), the symbolic capital that individual journalists possessed in the

minds of the public and in the minds of politicians was largely a product of

their institutional and professional affiliations.

In this section of the report, the authors get at what news institutions do well: leverage (to

get information and reach audiences), symbolic capital (to provoke engagement by the

powerful), continuity (to survive the loss of individuals), and slack (to respond to the

news needs of the day).

Page 59

We heard a similar story from a senior editor at the New York Times: We were

told effectively that the cuts meant doing more with less, one less person, no

letup in the coverage. At no point were we ever asked by someone who had the

technical capabilities or authority to actually change the tools or the ways we

might use them: Lets look at what you have to do in a day and see how we can

change processes. This is what was so maddening.


9/15



Included here because its the closest thing to smack talk in the report.

Page 66

Recommendation: Create Startup Guides

Starting a new news organization isnt as hard as stabilizing these startups over

the medium to long term. Because of this, successful startups (such as Talking

Points Memo, the Texas Tribune, West Seattle Blog, Baristanet) should create

publicly accessible startup guides that can be used by emerging news

organizations.

We also need to keep in mind that, because these organizations are successful,

their founders might have little time or interest in devoting resources to

explaining their success. They, after all, have journalism to produce! For this

reason, these organizations and others like them should receive foundation

money that will allow them to engage in this meta-reflection.

From talking with people who run many of those successful startups (particularly the

nonprofits), I know how much time they spend dealing with people calling for advice. Its

worth noting that The Hub, funded by the Ethics and Excellence in Journalism

Foundation and now run by the Investigative News Network, is an attempt to perform this

information-sharing role for community-based and nonprofit outlets. (Howard Owens

rightly notes in the comments that Local Independent Online News Publishers has similar

aims.)

Page 71

Rebuilt news institutions will design their workflow around a new, basic fact:

News is never a finished product, and there is never a daily paper or evening

newscast that sums up the work of the entire day.

This implies that news content, and the production of that content, will take

iteration as its starting point. News products will have to be made as reusable as

possible: on other platforms, on other devices, in new news stories, and even by

other news organizations.

Another place Id quibble: Lots of people want that summary of the entire day.


10/15



People like me and this reports authors (and, Id wager, you, dear Lab reader) enjoythe

iterative hunt for information living on Twitter, watching our browser history grow like

kudzu. And because the digital tools of the past decade have enabled our lifestyle like

nothing ever before, its easy to think that our path will be the path for everyone else

that were just the early adopters and everyone else is playing catch-up.

But not everyone wants to do what we do. And thats fine! I honestly believe that the single

biggestjournalistic opportunity for news organizations out there now is to find ways to

bring order to information madness to do a better job of summarization and curation

and highlighting and compacting and repackaging. Why doesnt The New York Times do

a good job of giving me a readable-in-10-minutes summary of what happened today each

evening? Why arent there better algorithms to let me know what stories I can confidently

ignore? Why cant I easily ask The Washington Post Give me five longer pieces from this

week its Saturday and Ive got some time to spend with my Kindle? This is the space

that products like Summly, Circa, and Evening Edition are trying to address, and its an

area I worry news companies (old and new) are going to miss out on.

Page 72

Much ink has been spilled over the question of organizational partnerships in

the news business, and many arguments have been advanced as to how

institutions need to be more open to collaboration with other members of the

digital news ecosystem. To date, however, the verdict on existing collaborativeprojects is mixed. A number of the New York Times most highly touted

collaborations (with the Chicago News Cooperative, the Bay Citizen, and the

CUNY-sponsored Local, for instance) have come to a rather inglorious end; at

the same time, many Times partner organizations have noted how working with

a powerful organization has the potential to distort their own organizational

priorities. The notion of institutional collaboration, while intellectually

powerful, is in need of some rethinking.

Agreed. Partnerships often take much more energy to manage than news organizations

expect. (Theyre actually an excellent argument for the classic newsroom structure, where

collaboration can happen under a single roof and a single management hierarchy.)

Page 75


11/15



A third perspective despairs that either of these market-based solutions can be

easily conjured up. Thinkers and writers in this camp point out just how

unusual the confluence between wealthy capitalist institutions and the public-

minded journalism they produced actually was. They argue that digital market

dynamics actually punish institutional players that seek to create broad-based,

monitorial media content. Unlike thinkers in the second camp, however, they

do not believe that the current dynamics of the digital news system can be easily

undone, nor do they think the dynamics necessarily should be undone even if

such an option were possible. Some thinkers within this perspective move from

here to an argument that the public goods produced by news institutions

(particularly beat reporting) can be funded only via non-market forms of

subsidy, whether philanthropic or proceeding more directly from the state.

One of the more interesting bits of theory in the study: distributed responsibility for

democratic accountability. Good section.

Page 83

A common theme in writing about the response to those changes by traditional

news outlets is the failure of newspaper management to recognize the problems

they would face. This, in our view, misdiagnoses the problem: The transition to

digital production and distribution of information has so dramatically altered

the relations among publishers and citizens that stay the course has never

been an option, and, for the majority of the press that was ad-supported, there

was never an option that didnt involve painful restructuring.

Also true. Journalists who complain about how stupid their publishers decisions are may

well be right but theres not exactly a long list of newspapers for whom the Internet has

been of business benefit. These were issues far bigger than any one company.

Page 89

This was a system where flows of business value were specified in bilateral

agreements and priced in dollarsa newspaper signs an agreement with the AP

in return for access to its feed. Compare that to the Huffington Posts original

model: the realization that some of HuffPos published material could excerpt


12/15



existing stories, add commentary, and produce an economically viable new

product.

Fair use has existed in this form for decades; what changed was the conditions

of the ecosystem. HuffPo management realized that fair use, as applied on the

web, meant that, in essence, everything is a wire service and that excerpting and

commenting on unique content from the Washington Post or the New York

Times was actually more valuable to readers than contracting with the AP or

Thomson Reuters.

The Huffington Post has often been criticized for this stance, but this is shooting

the messenger what it did was to understand how existing law and new

technology intersected.

For me, the great unlearned lesson of The Huffington Post is that its approach is available

for the taking. Its brand of aggregation-plus-comment has become the norm in the online-native news-org world, but traditional companies have been remarkably hesitant to steal

its tricks.

Page 96

There is a place for rapidly produced, short pieces of breaking news. There is a

place for moderately quickly produced analysis of moderate length (the first

draft of history). There is a place for careful, detailed analysis by insiders, for

insiders. There is a place for impressionistic, long-form looks at the world far

away from the daily confusion of breaking news. And so on. Not many

organizations, however, can pursue more than a few of these modes effectively,

and none that can do all of them for all subjects its audience cares about.

True for the all-subjects piece, but I think there are good counterexamples to the idea that

doing long, medium, and short is hard. Look at the Vox Media sites like The Verge and SBNation, for instance: Theyre built on a mix of long-form features, short aggregation

pieces, liveblogging, video where appropriate, and a variety of story types. Its stock and

flow: The longer stuff adds prestige and brand to the shorter stuff, and the shorter stuff

brings audience and vibrancy to the longer stuff. Once youve narrowed into a niche, I

think theres plenty of room for variation in modes.

Page 100


13/15



Recommendation: Demand that Businesses and Governments Release Their

Data Cleanly

The most valuable dollar a news organization can make is the dollar it doesnt

have to spend, and in the 21st century, the easiest dollar not to spend is the

dollar spent gathering data. In keeping with our recommendation that news

organizations should shift some of their priorities from covering secrets tocovering mysteries, anyone who deals with governments or businesses should

demand that publicly relevant data be released in a timely, interpretable and

accessible way.

Amen. This is part of what Dukes Jay Hamilton has been arguing: that one response to

lower revenues is to lower the cost of doing journalism. And clean, accessible government

data (and better public records laws) are a great way to do that.

Page 105

The story of journalism in 2012 is still often told as the story of the breakdown

of the old world, the end of the period when the news was whatever an

enumerable collection of institutionally stable actors chose to publish. This

assumption ran so deep that even someone who had seen decades into the

future could still believe that the digital turn in the newspaper business wouldfavor traditional virtues of editorial choice over the new ones of user

empowerment and that the business case for electronic media was around

revenue generation rather than cost reduction.

That End of an Era story, though, is itself ending. We are living in the least

diverse, least inclusive media environment we will inhabit for the foreseeable

future, which is to say that the ecosystem forming around us will include more

actors and actions than even todays environment does.

This is worth repeating: If you think things are strange and chaotic now, just wait until

2013. Or 2016. Or 2020. There will eventually be a re-institutionalization in reader habits,

in platforms, and in corporate structure but the number of voices will only continue to

rise. (Hence my belief that news companies should be investing more effort into building

products that aim to focus that cacophony.)

Page 108


14/15



Seen in this light, the long-term collapse of trust in the press is less a function of

changing attitudes toward mainstream media outlets than a side effect of the

continuing fragmentation of the American media landscape. (It is probably

time to retire the idea that there is something called the press that enjoys a

reputation among some group called the public.)

Fragmentation all around.

Page 111

Journalism schools will have to adapt to these changing models as well. Already,

journalism schools are more like film schools than law schools, which is to saythat the relative success or failure of a J-School grad is going to be far more

variable than it used to be. There are fewer entry-level jobs the jobs that used

to serve as unofficial proving grounds and apprenticeships in metropolitan

dailies and local TV than there used to be. Furthermore, the careers students

head into will be more variable, and more dependent on their ability to create

their own structure, as opposed to simply fitting into a position in a well-known

collection of rich and stable institutions.

See our series on journalism schools for more on that.

Page 115

Our overall recommendation for new news organizations is even simpler than

for journalists or for legacy organizations:

Survive.

Easier said than done! Our overall recommendation to people with terrible diseases:

Dont die!

Disclosure: While I had nothing to do with the report itself, I was one of about 20 people who

met for two days in April at Columbia to provide input to Chris, Emily, and Clay on their

thinking. And the report says nice things about Nieman Lab on page 45.


15/15


TweetTweet 782 Like 438 Read Later

WHAT TO READ NEXT

KELI GOFF DECEMBER 21, 2012

A new window on race

It did seem fair to anticipate that

coverage of a black president would result

in more diversity in the overall subjects

we the media cover.

TAGS: C. W. ANDERSON, CLAY SHIRKY, COLUMBIA JOURNALISM SCHOOL, EMILY BELL, HUFFINGTON POST,

POST-INDUSTRIAL JOURNALISM

ShareShare 30

“post-industrial journalism”- a new columbia report examines the disrupted news universe

Documents