Center for Cooperative Media

The values that underpin good journalism, the need of citizens for reliable and abundant information, and the importance of such information for a healthy society and a robust democracy: these are perennial, and provide compass-bearings for anyone trying to make sense of current changes across the media landscape.

This new study, supported by the Democracy Fund, the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation suggests that there are substantial differences in the quantity and quality of the local journalism produced within communities of different sizes and income levels. In this study, researchers examined the journalistic infrastructure, output, and performance in the New Jersey communities of Newark, New Brunswick, and Morristown.

The researchers analyzed one week of online journalism output across these three communities, focusing on both the home page content and social media (Facebook and Twitter) postings for all television, radio, print, and online journalism sources that could be located within these communities.

The results indicate substantial differences in the journalism infrastructure, output and performance across these three communities, particularly when controlling for differences in population size. In terms of infrastructure, the results show substantial differences, when controlling for population size, in terms of the number of journalism sources operating within each of these three communities. Newark, for instance, contains .58 journalistic sources per 10,000 capita; compared with 2.36 for New Brunswick and 6.11 for Morristown.

These pronounced differences in the availability of sources of journalism were then reflected in the journalistic output produced within these three communities. For instance, during the measurement period, Morristown journalism sources produced 23 times more news stories and 20 times more social media posts per 10,000 capita than Newark journalism sources, and 2.5 times more news stories and 3.4 times more social media posts per 10,000 capita than New Brunswick journalism sources. New Brunswick journalism sources produced 9.3 times more news stories and six times more social media posts per 10,000 capita than Newark journalism sources. In terms of performance, similar differences across the three communities often persisted when the researchers focused on aspects of the quality of local journalism, such as the extent to which the stories were original (rather than repostings or links to other sources); the extent to which the stories were about the local community; and the extent to which the stories addressed critical information needs, such as education, health, and civic and political life.

While it is difficult to generalize from a study of only three communities, these findings potentially point to a problem in local journalism, in which lower-income communities may be underserved relative to wealthier communities. The researchers intend to address this issue further by applying the methodology and performance metrics developed for this project to a larger sample of communities, an effort to better understand the factors related to the health of local journalism.

New Jersey saw significant cuts to its journalism corps in 2016. This was primarily due to the acquisition of North Jersey Media Group by Gannett Co. and ensuing layoffs, although other media organizations contracted as well. This report documents the North Jersey layoffs, and provides more detail about who and what was lost to the local journalism ecosystem in the process. For example, in a small survey of laid-off journalists conducted in December 2016, we found that nearly half had more than 20 years of experience covering local communities. We also ask the most important question: what impact did these layoffs have on the news and information provided by these outlets? In a comparison of four newspapers before and after the takeover, we find clear evidence of decreases in substantive community news and information. We conclude with strategic recommendations for interventions and strengthening the local journalism ecosystem.

Ethnic and community media are crucial interlocutors in the many ethnic, religious, and non-English-language communities in New Jersey and beyond. In this report we document a robust and optimistic, yet under-resourced and under-appreciated sector made up of at least 119 outlets serving New Jersey. These media outlets are generally well established with roots in communities dating back decades. They also tend to be close to their audiences, drawing on voices and viewpoints from a wide variety of community members and taking a high degree of input from them as well.

At the same time, interviewees expressed dismay at the under-appreciation of their work by the mainstream and by mainstream journalism; work which could clearly benefit those same mainstream outlets in myriad ways. And they appear to be a mixed bag in terms of the transition to digital, with some fully embracing it and others content to remain in legacy format.

Through a combination of database work, interviews, and surveys, this report provides a conspectus of the ethnic and community media serving New Jersey, transmits thoughts from publishers and established reporters about contemporary struggles and triumphs at these outlets, and documents their outlooks for the year ahead.

This article explores an effort to direct state-level public funds toward journalism by using a national policy window combined with an intensive grass-roots effort. We use the lens of Kingdon’s policy process model to showcase dynamics that contribute to the media policymaking literature. The process and enactment of New Jersey’s 2018 Civic Information Consortium bill are analyzed using a combination of archival research and oral history, high- lighting the efforts of policy entrepreneurs and knowledge- brokers, who served as key advocates for the bill’s passage. However, they faced strong oppositional political factors that dampened their efforts; specifically, a policy window narrowed by institutional pushback and the tradition of conservative oppos- ition to public funding of media limited the ultimate outcome for the novel initiative. Looking at implications for policymaking and media, the results provide a framework for a new model of public funding for journalism, but the case study also highlights the headwinds facing these types of policy initiatives, at least in the current political climate.