Musing on ‘Post Industrial Journalism’ report
That’s the title of an important new “survey/manifesto,” as its authors call it, from Columbia Journalism School’s Tow Center for Digital Journalism. I’ve just skimmed it so far, but there are some fascinating nuggets.
In the introduction, the authors (C.W. Anderxon, Emily Bell and Clay Shirky) establish 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.” (Their emphasis, but I heartily agree.)
You might say most of these observations/beliefs have been pretty obvious for some time now, but they lay the foundation for what follows in the next 100-plus pages. And what follows is interesting and provocative — at least from the pieces I’ve skimmed.
While much of the essay focuses on descriptions of the new news environment, its conclusion offers a few simple prescriptions — the most significant being that journalists and news organizations must be adaptable.
True and obvious to even a 40-year veteran journalist who has spent his entire career adapting.
If you can’t take in the entire report in one sitting, some good nuggets come from Jeff Sonderman at Poynter and Joshua Benton at Nieman Lab.
Any thoughts? Let me know in the comments.
Tags: C.W. Anderson, Clay Shirky, Columbia University, Emily Bell, Jeff Sonderman, Joshua Benton, Nieman Lab, Post Industrial Journalism, Poynter, Tow Center for Digital Journalism
Defending the First Amendment and promoting open government are more crucial now than ever. Join SPJ's fight for the public’s right to know — either as an SPJ Supporter or a professional, student or retired journalist.
