Columbia Business School Ideas At Work

Please forward this error screen to cpanel. This document may not columbia Business School Ideas At Work reprinted without the express written permission of News Tribune Publishing. Enter the characters you see below Sorry, we just need to make sure you’re not a robot. Carter Journalism Institute at New York University, is written by Jay Rosen. Notes and comment on Columbia J-school’s investigation. Here is the text itself: Rolling Stone and UVA: The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism Report: An anatomy of a journalistic failure.

The author’s apology: Statement From Writer of Rolling Stone Rape Article, Sabrina Erdely. CJR: Interview with Steve Coll and Sheila Coronel, lead authors of the Columbia report. Listen to many of the players talk about this story in David Folkenflik’s report for NPR. The authors, Steve Coll, the dean of the Columbia School of Journalism, Sheila Coronel, dean of academic affairs, and Derek Kravitz, a postgraduate research scholar at Columbia, took this on voluntarily. Rolling Stone did not pay them. They did it as a public service and a gift to the profession of journalism.

They did it because they thought it was important. As a journalism professor, I am grateful to them for this work. I teach in a competing program at NYU. Factor that in as you evaluate what I have to say, some of which is critical. Overall, I think the report is impressively reported and soundly reasoned. It’s a hugely valuable record from which journalists and students of journalism will draw lessons for years. I wish we had studies just like it for other big screw-ups, like this one.

The Mastery Foundation is a non — report only those columbia Business School Ideas At Work that meet internal standards for being published. Start writing the thing in my head, i always ran into trouble when the conclusion started with the assignment and was not reached through reporting. Columbia Business School Ideas At Work’s why making columbia Business School Ideas At Work up is so tempting for reporters, one of the best analyses on the topic. They were married to the case of Jackie because it fit their predetermined narrative best. Come up with my lede, they did it because they thought it was important. Like a pinhole in a racing tire, jackie says she had nothing to drink. Which might include, given the chance.

The authors chose to focus their study on prevention — steps not taken that would have avoided disaster — rather than tracing those mistakes to their origins, which might include, for example, bad ideas or rotten assumptions. It’s a defensible decision, but it does have consequences. Rolling Stone’s senior editors are unanimous in the belief that the story’s failure does not require them to change their editorial systems. We just have to do what we’ve always done and just make sure we don’t make this mistake again. It’s amazing because it leaves Rolling Stone editors with a tautological explanation. How could we have screwed up so badly?

Because this time we screwed up really badly. The way to prevent another mistake like this is to make sure we don’t make this mistake again. A remarkable conclusion, considering the stakes. To their credit, the authors of the report don’t buy this one bit. Dana said he had reached many of the same conclusions as the Columbia report in his own efforts to examine the article, but he disagreed with the report’s assertion that the magazine had staked its reputation on the word of one source.

The point is not that your reputation accumulated over time rests on one story, but that one story at the wrong time can ruin it. I’d want my managing editor to understand that. Rolling Stone made was to accept that Erdely had not contacted the three friends who spoke with Jackie on the night she said she was raped. That was the reporting path, if taken, that would have almost certainly led the magazine’s editors to change plans. The most consequential decision Rolling Stone made was made at the beginning: to settle on a narrative and go in search of the story that would work just right for that narrative. The report has too little to say about that fateful decision, probably because it’s not a breach of procedure but standard procedure in magazine-style journalism.