Twitter  Friday is the deadline to apply for a visiting Nieman Fellowship  
Nieman Journalism Lab
Pushing to the future of journalism — A project of the Nieman Foundation at Harvard

The future of news in 4 dimensions: Charting new kinds of news orgs

With the journalism and technology landscape changing literally by the hour, I often feel that one thing missing from conversations about “the future of news” is the long view. Steve Yelvington was implicitly making this point about history when he recently wrote that

…newspapers have a track record of empirical learnings that perhaps ought to be considered before jumping off into a debate about beliefs.

It’s this historical perspective that makes Scott Rosenberg’s book on blogging so valuable. I tried to bring a sense of local media history to my Philadelphia research as well.

In the summer of 2006, I published a two-part post entitled “Actually Existing Citizen Journalism Projects.” It was an attempt to sort through the noise about who counted as a journalist and trace the developments of the form during the prior decade. I don’t want to recap the entire post here, but I do want to summarize my previous thinking before I turn to more recent developments. In this post, I want to ask: How would we describe the overall arc of media history from 2006 to 2009?

In my original posts from the summer of 2006, I argued that we could point to six “actually existing” types of citizen journalism, which emerged in roughly chronological, but overlapping, order: personal homepages; Indymedia; blogs; hyperlocal journalism; “Big Media” citizen journalism; and networked journalism.

I argued that personal homepages could trace their ancestry back to the world of zines, and that the emergence of Indymedia represented a huge step forward in the world of web reporting, as it marked one of the first times amateurs delivered breaking, reported news to a live audience. I argued that (some) blogs marked a further expansion and popular diffusion of the citizen-journalism model. The second part of the post tried to come to grips with the fact that the old model — “amateurs vs. professionals” — was mutating into various forms of collaboration between citizen and professional journalists. (I should note that this collaboration was not preordained. There was a huge cultural tension between these two groups in the early days, and there sometimes still is.)

It’s now three years later, and a tremendous amount has already changed in the journalism world. The biggest development, without a doubt, has been the economic crisis in the news industry. What was once a cultural conflict about definitions of professionalism has become the much more serious crisis surrounding the future of reporting itself. It is a crisis in which professional definitions — battles over “who counts” as a journalist — play a part…but only a part.

So given that, how should we update my original timeline, three years later?

I would argue that the locus of our attention, and our typologies, should be at the intersection between the professional and the amateur. As many people have argued, it’s no longer meaningful to distinguish between a “corporate” or “traditional” journalist from a “blogging” journalist. This is a mistake a lot of traditional journalists still make when discussing online media — you don’t get special analytic consideration just because you work for a newspaper, magazine, or an affiliated website. The whole notion that you would is a little ridiculous. Many journalists these days write for blogs affiliated with newspapers with very low readership and revenue, and then go on to write for standalone publications with much greater institutional resources.

This new journalism timeline would emphasize dynamic organizational movement along four axes: (a) the type of work predominant in your organization, (b) how traditionally “institutionalized” your organization is, (c) your institutional resources, and (d) how open or closed your organization is to non-affiliated members (volunteers, etc). And when we talk about the history of online journalism, we can trace the movements of different people, or organizations, or wide-scale “centers of gravity,” across all four of these axes.

The type of work predominant in your organization: from pure commentary, to link gathering, aggregation, and filtering, to “fact” gathering, aggregation and filtering. Does your news organization primarily comment on the news? Does it gather and sort through online links and already reported facts? Or does it gather/analyze/distribute new facts? All of these types of work cost money, all contribute to democracy, and all overlap to one degree or another. But by asking “what does Organization X generally spend its time on and how does it define itself,” we can usefully start categorizing different kinds of journalism organizations.

How traditionally “institutionalized” your organization is: Do you have a traditional management structure? Do you have a large organization with a clear hierarchy and chain of command, with procedures in place for solving problems? Or do you operate in a more loosey-goosey fashion? Within sociology there’s a long tradition studying “institutionalization,” and this category would plot organizations along this axis.

Your institutional resources: How many staff do you have? Do you pay them? How much? Do you own your own office building? Can you compensate people for the work they do for you, and do you need to?

How open or closed your organization is to non-affiliated members? Who does the work? Are they people with loose organizational attachments or strong ones? Do you mostly rely on drop-by volunteers? Do you give people a title and an email address? Is most of the work done by staffers or the networked web? Keep in mind that while there might be a correlation between greater institutionalization and a more closed workforce system (as in this article about Wikipedia’s new consultants), this is not always the case. Large institutions can have very open systems, or small organizations can be run in a very bureaucratic, closed way.

When taking all those factors into consideration, you end up with the four-dimensional graph at the top of this post. The x-axis moves from commentary to fact-gathering (with link-gathering in the middle). The y-axis moves from institutionalization to deinstitutionalization.  The z-axis (the size of the dots) represents institutional resources. And the shade of the dots represents how open and closed they are. So one organization could be institutionally strong, very closed to unaffiliated volunteers, have a (fairly) high level of resources (money, space, etc), and primarily engage in a hybrid of commentary and link collection.

Hey, I just think I described Gawker!

As you can see, it helps to have examples. I’ll get to those in a subsequent post. For now, I’d like to open this up to comments: How would you write the history of the last three years of changes in journalism? What’s the “long view” as you see it? What’s the big picture we should all be focusing on?

What to read next
Justin Ellis    Aug. 27, 2014
What separates the successful innovation projects from their peers? Preparing for resistance, being agile about audience, and getting the user experience right.
  • Sharon Stevenson

    Perhaps you do not consider it within the scope of this article, but where does the element of trustworthiness enter? In fact I would say it is a major element in the concept of professionalism.
    And how then is trustworthiness created. In large part it is a perception on the part of the reader, but anyone thinking a bit farther could assume that it depends on the sources of information of the write (as well as their judgment and transmission arts of that information.
    So does the normal blogger with a day job have the time and resources to build up a coterie of sources easily tapable and expandable beyond one topic? Does the blogger have the time to assiduously cultivate sources beyond normal work, friends and family relations? When getting to the bottom of issues requires travel, does the normal blogger have access to those funds to allow them to travel and stay the time required to dig, cultivate, plumb the resources in that location?
    Of course I expect a realist could say simply the great majority of eyeballs doesn’t give a damn, unless their own pecuniary or familial interests are touched and therefore normally are not served by the likes of investigative journalism or even balanced journalism. When those interests ARE touched, of course, then you can bet trustworthiness does count.
    I would suggest you try to incorporate trustworthiness as a quality in a consideration of new news organizations, as well as the old, of course!

  • Matt Mireles

    @sharon Trustworthiness is a relative thing that depends on the individual. This is the beauty of Facebook. You may think all the people in my network are loons, but I actually know them and therefore implicitly trust them (or some of them) more and value what they have to say. Similarly, depending on your politics, the New York Times may be a very trustworthy information source, or it may be part of the evil MSM that spits out lies. Ditto with Fox News. Trustworthiness is not an absolute.

  • Matt Mireles

    Style comment: I’ll try to be kind here…This piece is very, umm, academic. And by that I mean not just boring but that it offers a theoretical framework without applying it or explaining why i as a reader should care or making an argument why the theory itself is important. That’s OK in strictly academic circles, but I expect more from the nieman jlab.

  • Pingback: Download Rock Band for Nintendo Wii | Download Rock Band – Nintendo Wii | Rock Music 4 ALL

  • C.W. Anderson

    Hi Matt,

    Play along for a minute. What do *you* think the value of the schema is? And how do you think it could be applied, if at all … or do you think that in practical terms it is fairly useless?

  • Pingback: The Future of News in Four Dimensions « J-School: Educating Independent Journalists

  • Pingback: The future of news in 4 dimensions: Charting new kinds of news orgs » Nieman Journalism Lab – The 5th Estate: Citizen News

  • Matt Mireles

    Hi CW,

    I guess that’s my issue––is that I don’t see the schema as having a whole lot of value outside of a strictly academic setting. How does the schema change how I operate or think about the world? By itself, It doesn’t.

    That said, if you were to take it and tweak it so that you used it to numerically score news orgs on some Anderson scale of dinosaur/mammalness and then charted out those scores with regards to profitability, growth, revenues vs costs and other metrics of survivability in the digital age, then you’d have something interesting.

  • Matthew Powers

    Chris — I like the schema you offer, as it provides a way of thinking through the different activities and resources founds in news orgs (as opposed to recreating a series of ‘ideal types,’ e.g. mainstream newspapers, alternative blogs, etc.).

    That said, I do have a question about how this schema might be used to help us think through the ways in which news organization are themselves internally divided. I get that you are talking about “predominant” trends, but what are we to make, say, of the increased importance within ‘traditional’ news orgs of programmers (or programmer-journalists, or whatever one might call them)? One relevant part of the recent history, it seems to me, is that many ‘traditional’ orgs have reintegrated online and print staffs and some individuals within the organization retain a higher standing in this process. And this higher standing translates, presumably, into a different vision of what constitutes ‘fact-gathering’ itself (I am thinking of Adrian Holovaty’s Everyblock, for instance; or Matt Waite’s Politifact, etc.).

    My question for you, then, is this: is there a way you can envision your schema as incorporating the ways in which news orgs are internally divided? Or is this question orthogonal to your present concern?

    Thanks for the thoughtful post.


  • Pingback: Catch up or get left behind – Invisible Inkling

  • David Hertz

    Great post. I like the thinking here. As newspapers evaluate what they are and what they aspire to be, the schema is helpful.

    Of course, media will go through the debate of how to maintain standards under attack by shoddy reporting, but that has always been the case. It’s just that we monitored ourselves, with mixed success. (Jayson Blair?)Citizen journalism is not going away, so newspapers need to embrace it, as you suggest they have.

    As to your question of the history of the last three years of journalism, I’d add the rise of public dialogue. Sure, newspapers used to employ letters to the editor. Then they added comment spaces at the end of articles placed online. Now, smart media are becoming centers of information AND dialogue. They integrate community discourse. Of course, they have to figure out how to make a profit at it as well. Which brings us back to community journalists…..

    David Hertz

  • Pingback: Shared Items: 4 September 2009

  • Pingback: antes do 7 de setembro, 7 links « monitorando

  • Pingback: The future of news in 4 dimensions: How real news orgs fit in the model » Nieman Journalism Lab

  • Pingback: This week in media musings: Dividing and conquering, and two news models | Mark Coddington

  • Pingback: For News Organizations, Transparency is the New Objectivity « The Levisa Lazer

  • Pingback: News Organizations: How Transparent Can We Be? « DigiDave – Journalism is a Process, Not a Product

  • Pingback: Authorties and Their Censorship « Jgualotuna's Blog