THE PATH TO IMPACT: INSIGHTS FROM GLOBAL MAJORITY NEWSROOMS
The Study;
In Evidence
We Trust.
As Report for the World’s first cohort of newsrooms and journalists complete their 3-year cycles, we asked Dr. Anya Schiffrin, and her Capstone team at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) to analyze the impact of beat-focused reporting by our newsrooms. Their analysis explores the key successes and challenges of our program in supporting these newsrooms on their journeys.
To analyze how critical beat-focused, full-time reporting impacts the quality and reach of public interest journalism produced by newsrooms, and why limitations persist despite the support.
Credit: Fellipe Abreu / Mongabay Brasil / O Eco Award
Schiffrin and her team created a multi-dimensional taxonomy to analyze the “causal effects of media reports on a range of social, political and economic outcomes.”
They developed a 30-part matrix that measures investigative journalism's impact across three broad categories: individual, network, and institutional.
The matrix examines short-term effects on journalists and audiences, midterm developments such as new storylines, and long-term shifts in editorial missions and systemic changes. It provides editors, newsrooms, and funders with insights into how these impacts interconnect and contribute to structural, systemic, and policy transformations within affected communities.
The matrix categorizes impact under six sections, highlights the influence of Report for the World’s program on newsrooms and the local news media ecosystem.
Network impact:
said that advocacy networks and other groups acted on their reporting.
45%
said their reports were mentioned in hearings or advocacy campaigns.
35%
Media Amplification:
said their reporting was amplified by social media.
35%
said their reporting was amplified by other media outlets.
40%
Individual Impact:
said their reporting shifted the perceptions of their audiences
70%
said audience knowledge increased as a result of the reporting.
85%
Institutional Impact
said their reporting may be leading to government investigations.
30%
Network impact:
45%
said that advocacy networks and other groups acted on their reporting.
35%
said their reports were mentioned in hearings or advocacy campaigns.
Media Amplification:
35%
said their reporting was amplified by social media.
40%
said their reporting was amplified by other media outlets.
Individual Impact:
70%
said their reporting shifted the perceptions of their audiences
85%
said audience knowledge increased as a result of the reporting.
Institutional Impact
30%
said their reporting may be leading to government investigations.
Network impact:
said that advocacy networks and other groups acted on their reporting.
45%
said their reports were mentioned in hearings or advocacy campaigns.
35%
Media Amplification:
said their reporting was amplified by social media.
35%
said their reporting was amplified by other media outlets.
40%
Individual Impact:
said their reporting shifted the perceptions of their audiences
70%
said audience knowledge increased as a result of the reporting.
85%
Institutional Impact
said their reporting may be leading to government investigations.
30%