SHOULD THERE BE A PRENUP FOR NEWSROOMS?
BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEX RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MISSION, QUALITY, AUDIENCE engagement, independence and social outcomes, many journalists are frustrated when asked to account for the impact of their work. Charles Lewis and Hilary Niles of American University’s Investigative Reporting Workshop sum up this stance nicely in their 2013 report, Measuring Impact: The Art, Science and Mystery of Nonprofit News:
[I]t should be noted that veteran reporters and editors, particularly of the investigative ilk, have an inherent, almost visceral dislike of audience measurement and engagement strategies and other metrics-producing data. They perceive themselves, first and foremost, as intrepid hunter-gatherers of information, hearty truth-tellers treading through the often extremely difficult, well-nigh impossible terrain of disingenuous politicians, opaque institutions, potentially litigious, public relations-larded corporations, trying to do original reporting that cannot be reduced to mere data, an inhospitable milieu. … They also believe, correctly, that sometimes the most significant journalism is the least read, least viewed initially, stories discovered months or even years later, or maybe crucial to public understanding of complex issues but in an undramatic way. [Note: 17]
The report raises questions for funders of news projects—considering that their own funding may be perceived as undercutting the integrity of that journalistic piece. How funders answer these questions relies on agreements they make with grantees about whether and when journalism can or should aim to make change. These decisions will in turn shape impact assessment.
Some funders may still choose to take journalism’s value to democracy as an article of faith, providing little more than operational support, and only asking for proof that the project was completed. Others may hone in on a particular area of coverage without specifying reporters’ subjects or conclusions. Still others maintain a dual focus—on both individual grantees and the broader health of the industry.
Working with journalism grantees to carefully define what constitutes impact in each case—and what to track as a result—can take extra time up front. But ultimately, it will head off misunderstandings, allow both funders and grantees to identify appropriate boundaries for interacting with one another, and strengthen the strategies that grantees use to engage audiences and stakeholders.
A useful tool in approaching the question of defining impact, specifically in the realm of documentary film, is a site produced by Active Voice: The Prenups: What Filmmakers and Funders Should Talk About Before Tying the Knot [Note: 18] (theprenups.org). Based on in-depth interviews and focus groups with both filmmakers and foundations, this framework lays out a set of “archetypes” for both groups that helps them to understand one another’s goals and motivations.
Some funders may still choose to take journalism’s value to democracy as an article of faith, providing little more than operational support, and only asking for proof that the project was completed. Others may hone in on a particular area of coverage without specifying reporters’ subjects or conclusions. Still others maintain a dual focus—on both individual grantees and the broader health of the industry.
Working with journalism grantees to carefully define what constitutes impact in each case—and what to track as a result—can take extra time up front. But ultimately, it will head off misunderstandings, allow both funders and grantees to identify appropriate boundaries for interacting with one another, and strengthen the strategies that grantees use to engage audiences and stakeholders.
A useful tool in approaching the question of defining impact, specifically in the realm of documentary film, is a site produced by Active Voice: The Prenups: What Filmmakers and Funders Should Talk About Before Tying the Knot [Note: 18] (theprenups.org). Based on in-depth interviews and focus groups with both filmmakers and foundations, this framework lays out a set of “archetypes” for both groups that helps them to understand one another’s goals and motivations.
Walking both parties through questions designed to surface roles, expectations, power dynamics and business relationships before “tying the knot,” The Prenups has become a standard tool for documentary producers and funders in the US and UK.
We can reframe the questions to consider about evaluation to fit journalism projects:
Answering these questions together can help funders and media outlets nail down what type of evaluation to put into place.
We can reframe the questions to consider about evaluation to fit journalism projects:
- What is the purpose of reporting and evaluation on this project?
- What must the grantee report to the funder and when? For example, progress in production, new project advisors, changes in the budget or updates on subjects?
- What happens if the grantee is delinquent in providing interim reports? Are there sanctions? Can the funder withhold funds?
- After the project or grant period is completed, what is the time frame for evaluation of impact?
- What is covered by short-, medium- and long-term evaluations?
- How will impact be measured and what specific data is the grantee to collect for evaluation?
Answering these questions together can help funders and media outlets nail down what type of evaluation to put into place.