Comments on: The future of the Review: Your suggestions wanted

By: Allie Downham

Sat, 19 Dec 2015 19:16:36 +0000

Before turning the RRJ digital is even considered, maybe we should acknowledge the fact that the mobile layout for articles on this site is seemingly non-existent/awful. The text doesn’t even align to the screen.

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.

]]>

By: Ruane Remy

Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:12:24 +0000

I got my very first job straight out of j-school in part because I leveraged my invaluable experience working for the RRJ. Knowing that one’s writing and editing work will be immortalized in hard copy produces a level of dedication, determination and quality that students need. And to hold the physical magazine in your hand instills a deep sense of satisfaction, especially when you can place the magazine in front of potential future employers during a job interview. Also, the opportunity for students to work in an editorial role (ex. editor-in-chief, chief copy editor, production editor, etc.) gives them months of experience at a specific job in the publishing process. To understand the process of publishing both on- and off-line is excellent and produces a more rounded journalist, but to promote digital publishing at the expense of physical publishing is a detriment to the RRJ experience and the overall experience in journalism school.

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

]]>

By: Ryan

Tue, 08 Dec 2015 15:05:23 +0000

“It seems print and digital can co-exist after all. The new won’t replace the old. The new will hammer the old, deform it, reform it, reconceive, reconfigure, but the old won’t disappear.”

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

]]>

By: Veronica Maddocks

Thu, 03 Dec 2015 21:03:40 +0000

Killing the print version of the RRJ would be a great loss to Ryerson students and to the magazine’s readers. Masthead students learn the rigours of intense research and writing. Their stories are edited by professionals then turned inside out by a fact-checker, their biases challenged, their presumptions demolished. The long form stories they produce are often as detailed as anything found in the real world of writing and publishing. Online publishing does an excellent job of handling fast, throwaway information. But print magazines have longevity in a reader’s home, have the ability to hold one’s attention as subjects are dissected and judged. TV didn’t replace movies; digital watches didn’t replace analog – despite all the predictions. New print magazines are constantly being launched. Their owners and editors believe there is a place for both forms of delivery. You ask about “a learning experience relevant to future careers.” Print is not dying, it is changing for the better. Your students must learn to be a part of that change.

]]>

By: Chloe Tse

Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:40:03 +0000

My feelings on ditching the print edition of The Review are mixed. As someone who has been in digital media (and programmatic advertising) — working primarily with online publications and understanding more folks prefer clickable content — the value of print is still high. The experience working on the RRJ in fourth year was the most unique and important in my career — from the need to be in the magazine lab for that entire school year devoting time, energy and love to an intense process that demands a meticulous mind to learning how to operate as part of a team. To this day, the effort required to put out the print edition of the Review has been the most significant. Because online features and articles have shorter lives and are usually driven less by content but by what is trending and what will attract clicks — the level of journalism involved is compromised. In extension, the professional environments have evolved and demand significantly less than the print edition of the RRJ did. But it’s the work ethic and standards set by the print edition that help raise the bar when someone from the Review enters that work culture.

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.

]]>

By: Karen K. Ho

Tue, 01 Dec 2015 19:45:20 +0000

I have been subscribing to the Review since I was in high school. I used to dream about writing for it. I never imagined I would be interviewed for it one day.

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.

]]>

By: Amanda Panacci

Tue, 01 Dec 2015 19:32:06 +0000

As a Ryerson alum, I can confidently say that working on the Ryerson Review was the most rewarding learning experience. I was an online editor on the spring 2015 masthead, but the skills I acquired went far beyond the web. As many current and former masthead members can attest, a Review member wears many hats. No member of the masthead is left out of any aspect of the print and online editions making it a complete learning experience for all. But without the print edition, the Review would be incomplete.

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

]]>

By: Yusur Al-Bahrani

Tue, 01 Dec 2015 17:13:45 +0000

I graduated last October. I spent last year at the RRJ and even though I finished school, it still feels like a part of me. I believe in online journalism as a cost effective method and also as a platform that could reach anywhere and everyone in the world! But I still can’t see the RRJ without the glossy print version of it. Having the work on print adds more responsibility on the journalist’s shoulder (in this case, the student): it gives the impression that the words will stay printed forever! This will give her a strong motivation to fact check and do better research. In addition to that, the print RRJ adds more credibility and value to the media watchdogs in an age where everyone with access to Internet can have a website and publish anything.

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

]]>

By: Ivor Shapiro

Tue, 01 Dec 2015 16:54:48 +0000

Some great ideas here! Thank you!

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.

]]>

By: Vanessa Milne

Tue, 01 Dec 2015 15:32:20 +0000

I really don’t get the cost problem. Surely the review was never funded by advertisers. The broadcast kids get video equipment – can’t the magazine kids get the magazine? Is it really that expensive to publish? Doesn’t tuition pay for the bulk of it?

]]>