PrintJournalism
Magazines and newspapers have been wringing their hands in a state of existential despair for quite some time. But surprisingly, the Columbia School of Journalism might not share their concerns. A report published last month by Leonard Downie, Jr., former executive editor of the Washington Post, and Michael Schudson, a professor at the School of Journalism, presents an optimistic take on the challenges facing journalism. In “The Reconstruction of Journalism,” published in the Columbia Journalism Review with the support of the Charles H. Revson Foundation, Downie and Schudson argue that the very economic factors that some believe spell the demise of the newspaper industry can be turned into opportunities.
In a public letter, School of Journalism Dean Nicholas Lemann lauded the report for its focus on “accountability journalism,” in which newspapers appear only as “part of a much larger cast of featured players.” The report argues that news patronage that produces journalism in the public interest is gone, and that other actors, such as foundations, universities, and journalists themselves, must take an interest in independent reporting.
It outlines six specific solutions for journalism’s current challenges: the congressional authorization of tax breaks for nonprofit and low-profit news organizations; increased investment by philanthropists, foundations, and community organizations; the reorientation of public television and radio to provide news reporting; the creation of university platforms for independent news organizations and reporting; the creation of national funds for local reporting; and the engagement of nonprofits, journalists, and other actors to increase public awareness and recognition of various sources of reporting. The future that Downie and Schudson paint may not keep newspapers front and center, but it does illustrate the continued possibility and necessity of independent reporting, regardless of the medium in which it appears.
Business
Another corner of campus also recently tackled the challenges facing media organizations. Columbia Business School professors Jonathan Knee, Bruce Greenwald, and Ava Seave recently published “The Curse of the Mogul: What’s Wrong with the World’s Leading Media Companies,” a book described by fellow professor Joseph Stiglitz as “the clearest, most valuable explanation of the evolving economic imperatives of the media industry” and “essential reading” for anyone interested in modern media.
An excerpt of the book in The Atlantic deconstructs four myths governing the conduct of the media industry: that growth is good, going global is desirable, content is king, and the convergence of various media outlets is the future. The authors argue that these misleading business principles have been guiding media moguls for the last two decades—that they predate the problems introduced by the Internet and the recent economic crisis, and are only exacerbated by the latter two conditions.
Two other Business School faculty members also published a prescription for current social and economic ills. In “The Aid Trap: Hard Truths About Ending Poverty,” Glenn Hubbard and William Duggan argue that aid for Africa should no longer be distributed to non-governmental organizations and governments, and should instead be invested in businesses to support local growth. A direct challenge to the United Nations Millennium goals directed in part by Columbia’s celebrity professor Jeffrey Sachs, this proposal rejects microfinance in favor of a sort of Marshall plan of operation.
Medicine
Far uptown, a team of neurologists and psychiatrists at the Columbia University Medical Center identified a region in the hippocampus that is involved in the early development of schizophrenia and could help predict the onset of the disease. Published in the Sept. 7 issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry, an article written by Scott Schobel, Nicole Lewandowski, et al. reported the results of a two-year study of young adults chosen for their potential predisposition to schizophrenia. The implications of the study are of profound significance: There are currently no diagnostic tests for schizophrenia, but earlier identification and intervention could have dramatic results for patients by slowing down the progression of the mental disorder. In the context of the current debate over health care, it is critical to examine such potential for more effective intervention practices early on in treatment.
Another study at Columbia, spearheaded by Hannah Wunsch of CUMC and colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh and the British Intensive Care National Audit & Research Center, explored another realm of inquiry relevant to health care deliberations. Their article in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine compares health care systems in the United States and England, finding that in the former, over half of hospital deaths involve intensive care, while in the latter, only about 10 percent do. The study illuminates the differing practices related to end-of-life care: Across the Atlantic, intensive care isn’t often pursued as an option for the elderly. In the United States, as explained by primary author Derek Angus, intensive care is much more invasive, dangerous, and expensive. Most important, however, it sheds light on potential new fields of inquiry and research: the factors that produced such differing conditions themselves.