I understand why this is being discussed, but A LOT of publications jump on the digital only train when they’re clearly unprepared. Online articles may be more readily available, but more often than not print is the easiest to read and digest, especially in long form journalism.

Side note: Is the RRJ also offered as an e-book that can be read on an iPad, e-Reader, etc.?

— http://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/back_in_print.php

The print edition of the RRJ is more about the process and culture since the reach is already pretty niche. This publication is for folks interested in the state of Canadian journalism — exactly what will it mean if the magazine focused on producing award-winning content for folks in the industry give up trying to maintain such a high standard behind the print edition?

If there’s a way to encourage the same level of education that is born from understanding word counts, magazine layouts and the importance of everything working on the print edition involves — then, for sure consider it. There’s a finality to print. More attention to detail required. Edits are made too easily online and the experience that comes from the print process is just so valuable.

PS, seeing the RRJ on newsstands still makes my heart explode.

I think it is still an important publication, both for the students compiling and its readers. I always enjoy reading it and make time for it when it arrives. I loved when it came out twice a year. I think the issues it often covers are wonderful, carefully chosen and well-done. I still remember features like the one on Ian Brown or the FOB one on the Post-It notes in the Star’s Radio Room.

I would be sad to see its print edition go away. There is still something magic about holding something in your hands. I would be willing to chip in extra money to help keep it going, despite not being a Ryerson alum.

I know that funding (be it from the university or advertising) is more difficult to get, costs are still high and magazine jobs are harder to get than ever. But I feel like what the Review does is unparalleled in Canada, especially in journalism education, and I would hate to see its print edition go away.

If anything, I would hope that this situation forces students and the professors in charge of the review to think seriously about improving the business side – be it broadening the events thrown to help raise money to pay for costs, how it commissions art and photography, to syndicating some of the stories to other outlets. These are skills and experience that will be valuable well after graduation.

If Ryerson takes away its print edition, it would be succumbing to a widely held belief that in order to adapt to the new we must scrap the old. If the Review wants to identify with and engage its target audience, then it would do best to acknowledge that much of its core audience still works in print. If the Review wants to remain a rewarding learning experience then there needs to be an open discussion with students about what skills they deem most valuable.

For me, innovation and entrepreneurship isn’t dependent on the format of the magazine. Innovation also exists in new and different story ideas. The Review has been improving and changing every year, and it can continue to do so while keeping both editions alive.

Best of luck!
Amanda

My last year’s byline at the RRJ magazine was my greatest achievement. I want the magazine to stay.

To answer Vanessa’s question: tuition fees and government subsidies pay for teaching, ancillary fees go some way to paying for print and other technology and support across the program (including RRJ), advertising and donations help a lot, and we still fall short of meeting our needs on this and many other fronts, not only in our School but across the post-secondary education sector in Ontario and beyond.

Keep the ideas coming, folks. Every one of them is being noted in my growing file. And later today I hope to see the current masthead students’ research findings, which will be a huge asset as we move forward toward the transformation plan.

As I wrote to one life-long (or nearly) friend of the Review this morning: the question driving that plan will not be “print: yes or no?” The question that faces any publisher or editor today is: who are our (current and potential) audience members, what do they need, and how can we meet that need? If we start with that question, I believe editorial, distribution and sustainability solutions will flow naturally from the answer.