How To Fix American Journalism

If American journalism is to save itself, it must look to non-profits and universities for funding and support, forging partnerships hinged on hard-hitting investigations and led by a new crop of reporters trained to gather and not simply comment on the news.

That was the message conveyed by media watchdogs who gathered Thursday morning for a two-day conference at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism.

"Let's invite a group of our leading private universities and colleges to create, fund and operate a non-profit demonstration model for investigative journalism," said Bevis Longstreth of the Fund for Independence in Journalism, a conference sponsor.

Longstreth dismissed calls for a government-funded media bailout as "crazy, absolutely crazy" because one of the chief roles of an independent media is to report on government abuse. "Being fed by the hand one is trained to bite won't work," he said.

Media partnerships are already underway at schools across the country, said Charles Lewis, founder of the Center for Public Integrity and president of the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

In recent months programs have launched in Wisconsin, Illinois, and the state of Washington, as well as in Boston, Los Angeles and Miami, Lewis said. More established models include Lowell Bergman's UC Berkeley students working on projects for the New York Times and Frontline, as well as David Protess' death row innocence project at Northwestern University's Medill School.

"The diaspora of immensely talented journalists are going out and creating their own centers," Lewis said.

Sheila Coronel, director of Columbia's investigative journalism program, said such partnerships are crucial to a healthy media future. "Most of the watchdogs we have are middle aged - like me," she said. "We need watch puppies, and this is where universities can play a role."

But Lucy Dalglish, a media attorney and executive director of the Reporters Committee on Freedom of the Press, cautioned that relying on a non-profit model might expose journalists to government meddling.

"To me the notion of turning them all into non-profits subjects them to a level of government oversight and interference," Dalglish said. "I don't think you can insulate" media outlets from the government under a non-profit model.

John Dinges, who directs Columbia's radio journalism program, said media entities such as NPR and PBS have successfully navigated government oversight. "We're always in an environment where we face pressure," he said.

Whether such partnerships can take the place of the current, failing ad-driven model remains to be seen. Estimates for media job losses for 2008 range from 11,000 to 13,000. Pro Publica, the largest non-profit investigative outfit in the U.S., employs a reporting staff of 28, according to Longstreth.

Drew Sullivan, an editor at the Center for Investigative Reporting in Bosnia, pointed out that "ninety-five percent of the world's non-profit investigative resources are in this room."

Both intellectual freedom and financing are motivating these partnerships.

"It's not just press freedom," Nicholas Lemann, dean of the school, told the group. "It's also having revenues to actually to the work. Both of those are required."

Lemann cautioned against citing the First Amendment as an argument for the perpetuation of newspapers and other media, because it suggests that somehow the press will exist as a basic tenet of a free society, no matter what.

"There's a little bit of danger in that, because there's an assumption that 'it's just gonna happen,'" he said. A free press "isn't an inalienable right but was created with a lot of struggle and has a fairly tenuous existence."

Paul Steiger, editor-in-chief of Pro-Publica, addressed the fund raising question directly. He acknowledged that a single-donor, non-profit model, such as the one on which his news organization relies, is a starting point and not the magic solution.

Steiger said news organizations need to begin soliciting donations directly from journalists. "Because they're not that well paid and because there's not a tradition of giving, we've got to find ways to get small amounts of money from lots of individuals," he said.

Steiger said the press should also tap into the deep pockets of industries that benefit directly from journalistic content, such as telecommunications and cable, as well as Google and Microsoft.

These are "all relatively wealthy industries that make a lot of use of journalistic content," Steiger said. " I think it's appropriate for them to fund non-profit journalistic activities. I'm going to be making that case to someone tonight."

Comments

[cloudminder]

if you need an example just google

"University of California and scandals"

[cloudminder]

through universities??!! SERIOUSLY?!

Universities won't even report honestly on what happens on their campuses or in academia politics

the professors would make the AIG scoundrels blush...

pretty naive..........

[Henryk A. Kowalczyk - Huffpost Blogger]

There is no magic solution, just old fashion hard work.

The media have glided down to provide the half-digested pulp, lowering readers overall knowledge of public matters, and lowering further expectations. "Idiocracy" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808 is on the end of this process.

One can see this as a moral issue. I see this as a money issue, as under-informed and undereducated person simply is losing in the global marketplace. In other words, it is in the best financial interest of an every individual as well as a society as a whole to have good journalism.

However, the business model of today’s media is based on asking readers what they want from their newspapers. Or asking viewers what they want from their TV news. It is like asking teenagers if they want advanced algebra or playing video games. Except a small minority, they will know the right answer twenty years later, when loosing jobs to foreigners who in their teens did not have that choice.

Summarizing, money can be made in providing good journalism. Finding a method to do it, is the only one way of fixing journalism. People who are in media business now do not have a clue how to do it.

BTW, if you know an investor who is willing to make money on fixing journalism, please let me know. I have an idea.

[Sara Catania - Huffpost Blogger]

I heartily agree that finding the funding to sustain top-quality journalism is the number-one challenge we now face. Come on, investors. Now is the time to take a chance.

[historymatters]

I'm encouraged to learn about the university programs cited in this article. These seem really worthwhile to me!

I think the problem facing journalism is the same problem America as a whole is facing in dozens of ways. There is no one panacea that will rescue journalism. There's no one-size-fits-all approach, no standard method. A multi-faceted, highly nuanced approach utilizing multiple parties playing a variety of roles is needed. The same is true for our other big problems - fixing healthcare, going green, dealing with climate change, empowering the oppressed, learning to get along with other countries.

It's interesting that as the world has grown more interconnected and interdependent, the monolithic approaches are being cast aside. So many of the paradigms we're still trying to use were established during the Industrial Revolution, when economy of scale and standardization were appropriate means to advance. But I think we have used those tools to their maximum advantage, and now we're learning that they can't be used to fix every single thing.

This opens the door to try out other approaches, and these tend to be more holistic, variegated, and locally oriented, like micro-enterprises and micro-loan programs, buying locally, organic farming, redesigning energy grids to handle different power sources, and re-establishing walkable communities. I don't think it's a coincidence that this is going on at the same time we're seeing ever-increasing demographic diversity as well - the more viewpoints, the more ideas we seem to generate!

[Sara Catania - Huffpost Blogger]

Change is hard, but change can be very good. There is more than enough pain to go around right now in the world of journalism, but I think-- I hope -- that in the end the new models that are emerging will lead to a press that is free, fair and vigorous. We're already seeing it happening in the new online models popping up from San Diego to New York.

[RobinSeattle]

The problem with universities funding journalistic efforts, of course, is that it raises tuition fees, which are already out of reach for many working and middle class families. And I'm not sure corporate America is going to finance endowments related to improving the level of journalism in this country when it has effectively already been neutered to the point that we see corporate press releases framed as news stories on too many news shows.

I would suggest that we first break up the media conglomerates that have tried to homogenize the messages that the public gets everyday into one that benefits corporate America and not society.

A tax break for expenses specifically elated to investigative reporting can be instituted as well.

[historymatters]

great idea about breaking up the media conglomerates!

[Ohsherrie]

"I am a little unclear as to the difference between Investigative Journalism and Gotcha Journalism."

Investigative journalism is what Goldstein and Woodward did to expose the Watergate scandal.

Gotcha journalism is what the MSM did during the presidential primaries and campaign when they made news stories out of stupid crap like "lipstick on a pig" instead of the real issues.

[mredder4]

The problem with journalism is that it has lost the search for Truth. Truth doesn't come from parity or balance, so this myth that a story must present all sides is useless. Dig for the facts, present them as they are, and then report. You've let the term "Gotcha Journalism" turn investigative reporting into an easily-dismissed farce.

Journalists, stand up to those you're interviewing, YES, even if they push back.

[BBackSoon]

I would love to see more investigative journalism but I am a little unclear as to the difference between Investigative Journalism and Gotcha Journalism. Is it mainly whether or not you like the person being grilled?

And on the same subject but just a little different, while I am glad to know that people are actually looking into the past of the people that are being nominated to run our government I am worried that they might be tipped off from people with an agenda (Repubs) or simply digging until they find something, anything.

I think it is important that we have honest and reputable leaders in Washington but now that we are trying to clean up a super mess it seems odd that we question everything after 8 years of saying nothing when unscrupulous partisan lawyers where named to be AG and a guy that ran the Arabian horse association is named to head FEMA. Is there a middle ground of some type?

[MartiWilkinson]

One of the challenges faced by college instructors is teaching students basic media and information literacy skills. For many incoming college freshmen sites like Wikipedia and being a Google Monkey is what passes for good research. So the first thing any budding journalist needs to be trained to do is to recognize what is, and isn't, intelligent news gathering. Young students suffer from a knowledge deficient in regards to current events.

For example, I recently gave a presentation as part of a Communication Day panel to a group of undergraduates. I asked the room how many people have heard of California's Proposition 8 and two to three students raised their hands. When I asked about the California Octopluts' and the entire room had a show of hands. This indicates that what is even considered to be worth investigating has also deteriorated with the readership of newspapers. It's as if we are adhering to the standards of Rupert Murdoch as opposed to Katherine Graham.

One of the biggest headlines on the Huffington iis the criticism that Jon Stewart continues to administer to financial news reporters. It's kind of ironic that through comedy Stewart gives a better example of critical reporting than the pundits' hired by the 24 hour cable new networks. So while we are all getting fired up over Octomom, snickering at the Palins, and being bombarded with Rush Limbaugh the concept of what constitutes news and reporting is continuing to fall by the wayside. That's pretty sad.

[Sara Catania - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for your comment, Marti.

I, too teach college journalism and I know of what you speak.

I start each class with a news quiz based on front-page stories from the print version of the paper, which can be viewed online. The reason I use the print version is that, as I'm sure you know, you're much more likely to get a mix of real news than you are if you rely on what appears at the top of the screen on any news site, including the nation's most respected.

It's not a perfect solution, but I only hope these kids will outgrow their lack of interest in/understanding of the news of the day.

[Cloud7Raymaker]

HuffPost's Pick

"Dalglish said... "I don't think you can insulate" media outlets from the government under a non-profit model. "

Sure... not like you can with the corporate-funded system we have now. Good grief.

I'm also not sure newspapers companies are done-for, but their content needs to be of a higher standard to survive. The Judith Miller and Jayson Blair situations were crippling for the Times and put a pretty big black eye on investigative reporting (and honestly there were many, many lesser reporting failures in recent years that have degraded the public trust as well.) Also, I believe on-line delivery is the future, especially as cell phones become internet capable - reading online will become as convenient as carrying a paper copy so I suspect newspaper outlets will eventually need to embrace an online model to survive.

In any case, there needs to be some way to fund journalism that encourages hard-hitting accurate reporting. Relying on corporate donors / advertisers has sadly resulted in bland and generally poor journalism overall.

[Renee Feltz - Huffpost Blogger]

See more about the Watchdog conference at www.watchdog.org.

[Sara Catania - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks, Renee.

But don't use that link! I think is is the one you want, which gets you to a terrific live blogging site with content provided by Renee Feltz and other Columbia J Schoolers: http://watchdogconference.com/

[TRiley]

I've been an environmental journalist for 17 years and I've seen many an important story killed by newspapers for fear of alienating advertisers and stock holders. The demise of journalism is related to the fact that it had become a profit- and stockholder-driven industry. Finding a way to create an unencumbered non-profit news media seems the only - and a superior - answer to our continuing access to objective information. We'll still have our profit-based news via radio, television and internet. It's an entertainment business that's driven by marketing - not news.

See ASJA's HP post today: Russell Wild and Margaret Engel: The Demise of Investigative
Journalism

[dana94591]

Though I try to hold out hope I think newspaper are D E A D!!!

[Sara Catania - Huffpost Blogger]

You are probably right: newspapers ARE dead.

The key distinction to make is between newspapers and journalism.

Newspapers are simply a delivery system, like LPs or CDs. Vinyl discs exist now as a boutique item, and compact discs are on their way out. The music industry is in turmoil, but the music hasn't died.

In the same way, journalism will always be with us.

The difference is that good journalism performs a crucial muckraking role. The question is whether it will be able to sustain this role. It cannot without substantial funding and institutional support.