CJR report says mags may profit online, but at the expense of journalistic standards

A new report and survey from the Columbia Journalism Review says that magazine publishers who give away free online content have a good chance of turning a profit.  But it also found that the whole field is chaotic and less professional than traditional print journalism and that magazines are allowing their websites to erode journalistic standards. 

The results were published in the Review's March/April issue. The survey was based on information from 665 magazine editors, executives and managers from 3,000 U.S. based consumer magazines.  MediaDailyNews  summarized the report.

• 68% said advertising is the primary revenue source for their online operations, rising to 83% for those which are actually profitable;
• just 33% of sites are profitable, however, and a third of respondents didn't know!;
• 65% offer their content for free 

According to Victor Navasky, a professor at Columbia University's journalism school and chairman of the CJR: "What the survey shows is that there are no agreed-upon ethical or professional standards and practices and that everybody is making it up as they go along." Navasky added: "We were dismayed, and in some cases depressed, by the survey's findings."

Among the causes for dismay were that 

• 11% of respondents said they did not copy-edit for online content
• 48% said online editing is not as rigorous as their print editions
• 40% said web editors tend to be less rigorous in fact-checking
• 17% admitted there was no fact-checking at all online

Click here to view full report