What we’re learning

How can we leverage partnerships to achieve more ambitious journalism in the public interest and develop sustainable funding models, while also protecting journalistic integrity?

To explore this question, we’ve spoken with journalists, academics, scientists, entrepreneurs, and those in the nonprofit and philanthropy sectors in Canada and beyond − a wide spectrum of people who share an interest in how journalism can help us better understand complex issues facing our societies. We dug through media coverage, reports and other research and took a closer look at a number of ambitious collaborative journalism projects.

From this initial research, it seems we can agree on at least one thing: media could be doing a better job of reporting on the complex challenges facing our societies.

We journalists are decent at the fundamental purpose of our profession: chronicling what’s happening in the world, or bearing witness. But, as media’s traditional business models continue to erode, other equally important parts of our work have suffered. Fewer resources are dedicated to investigative journalism that holds those in power to account. Journalism informed by a deep understanding of complex, systemic issues is becoming rarer as we lose beat reporters. Media is falling short when it comes to fuelling constructive public dialogue, the sort that supports our communities in grappling with big challenges so they can move forward.

This is not to say that we never do a good job of these things; yet too often this public interest work is treated as a special project, perhaps nice to have and a way to win awards — but not a core part of the news media business.

But what we’re hearing from some journalists is that this needs to be a core part of our business. With traditional sources of funding waning, particularly in the context of digital disruption to the advertising market, our relevance to our communities (not only to our advertisers) is becoming a matter of survival. This is where our value lies.

Most journalists we talked to got into the profession to have an impact. The work they are most proud of is that which helped their audience and society better understand tough challenges and led to some sort of progress, whether that be policy change or an important dialogue. The Solutions Journalism Network, an American nonprofit founded by journalists including veterans from the New York Times, goes a step further:

Journalism’s predominant theory of change is that pointing out social problems will spur reform. Journalists act as whistleblowers and expose wrongdoing, but have little role to play beyond that.

We believe this theory of change is insufficient.

[…] The world’s problems are just too complex and fast-changing. People must learn about credible examples of responses to problems in order to become empowered, discerning actors capable of shaping a better society.

Meanwhile, outside the bubble of the journalism industry, a lot of people are working to address difficult social challenges. People like veteran disabilities advocate Al Etmanski, who can claim many big ticket community organizing and policy change achievements over decades, are frustrated with the change they’ve been able to achieve. Etmanski’s biggest challenge? Culture. He points to beat reporters like Globe and Mail health reporter Andre Picard, who, deeply embedded in issues, are pushing forward public dialogue about tough topics. But the Andre Picards are too few and far between. How can people like Etmanski work with journalists to spur the conversations society so desperately needs?

Many journalists we spoke to expressed a desire to do deeper, more solutions-oriented reporting on issues. They also identified barriers:

1. Scarce resources: It takes a hell of a lot of work to understand an issue deeply enough to consistently produce reporting informed by what communities really need to know and to gain the perspective required to identify systemic challenges and solutions. No journalist we spoke to felt they had enough time and funding.
2. Risk of influence: Relationships with sources are currency to beat reporters. However, there is a lot of anxiety around real and perceived influence resulting from working too closely with non-journalist individuals and organizations, even if those relationships could yield a deeper understanding of complex challenges or increased resources. This is an especially sensitive risk in the era of custom and sponsored content. In the absence of a framework to navigate more collaborative relationships, journalists tend to fall back on the tried and tested rules of the game.
3. Lack of incentives: Social impact does not generate revenue; unique website visitors do. Without metrics to measure the value of solutions-oriented journalism and a mechanism to translate that into revenue (ie. a business case), it won’t be prioritized in the scramble to stay afloat. At the individual level, journalists also need incentives to pursue public interest work, such as feedback from their peers and a viable career arc.

Despite barriers, it’s also a time of huge opportunity. For all its disruption to the advertising market, digital has given us a lot. We have tools to do deeper research and reach more people. We have new distribution methods. We can experiment and pilot ideas quicker, cheaper and with more flexibility. The way we think about news hasn’t changed — but the way we communicate has. It’s an appropriate moment to ask how we can do better.

What do you think?

The Case for Collaboration is intended to be a conversation starter. Our research is still in process. We have published this early iteration, merely a skeleton of the resource to come, to provoke dialogue in hopes you’ll contribute your thoughts and experiences.
Get in touch:  @erinmillar