In late 2023, Report for the World’s executive director, Preethi Nallu, began laying the groundwork for our first comprehensive impact study Pathway to Impact: Insights from Global Majority Newsrooms. In collaboration with Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), and under the guidance of Dr. Anya Schiffrin and her Capstone team, we aimed 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 from Report for the World and other media support organizations.
At the core of our methodology was the Impact Matrix, a framework developed by Dr. Schiffrin and a team of leading experts. It provides a comprehensive tool for assessing journalism’s influence in all its complexity, moving beyond traditional metrics such as clicks, reach, or virality. The matrix was first introduced in the 2023 study Understanding Journalism Impact: A Multi-Dimensional Taxonomy for Professional, Organizational, and Societal Change, published in the Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies.
Based on over a year of surveys, interviews, and case studies from 49 newsrooms across 28 countries, The Pathway to Impact: Insights from Global Majority Newsrooms evaluated the real-world effects of our newsroom partnerships by examining six key areas where journalism is driving meaningful change. These include consistent coverage and deeper awareness of critical issues, advancing the careers and skills of new generations of journalists, cultivating engaged audiences and communities, sparking action, advocacy, and accountability, fostering collaborations within and across borders, and generating diverse revenue streams to support sustainability. The report also outlines key challenges facing each of these areas and provides insights on how to address them in the future.
In the conversation that follows, I speak with Dr. Schiffrin about the origins of the Impact Matrix, its influence on how journalists and funders are redefining success, and how it can serve as a roadmap for strengthening journalism as a purposeful driver of change, particularly in fragile democracies.
Our Conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Q: Would you walk us through the story behind the Impact Matrix and why you created it?
Schiffrin: The idea for the Impact Matrix originated during the pandemic, when ICIJ (the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists) approached Ellen Hume with a question: how could ICIJ conduct a cost-benefit analysis of their investigative journalism work, similar to what Stanford economist James T. Hamilton had done in earlier studies? Ellen brought me and Lindsay Green-Barber into the project, and we quickly saw the potential to build something more comprehensive.
Because travel was limited at the time, we were able to assemble a remote, interdisciplinary team that included experts in economic development, political science, journalism, and graduate researchers. Lindsay had already been working on a typology of impact, and we decided to build on that foundation.
We looked at the existing literature on impact, starting with older models like the “journalism of outrage,” which focuses on a sequence of effects: individual consequences (like someone getting fired), deliberative actions (like public hearings), and policy changes. We also reviewed work by scholars like Phil Napoli and integrated frameworks that examined institutional and professional shifts in journalism itself.
The result was a comprehensive matrix with 88 indicators of impact. These spanned effects on audiences, journalists, newsroom culture, the profession at large, and tangible real-world outcomes. Some indicators, of course, are easier to measure than others, but we believed it was important to map out the full range of what journalism can achieve.
Q: What impact has the matrix had on global journalism since it was published?
Schiffrin: Since its release, the matrix has been used by organizations like Report for the World and ICIJ. One of the key findings from our surveys was the impact that cross-border reporting had on journalists themselves, on their skill development and career trajectories. That was something we suspected but were able to confirm through data.
We’ve had continued interest in the matrix from South Africa, Germany, and elsewhere. To make it more accessible, we also published a short summary version on the Global Investigative Journalism Network website, which helped reach practitioners who may not typically read academic journals.
In hindsight, the matrix’s size may have been overwhelming for some. We never expected newsrooms to use all of the indicators. In fact, many newsrooms opt to focus on just a few key forms of impact based on their capacity and goals, such as whether their work led to a policy change or was republished by others. But we wanted to give them a menu of options they could choose from based on their specific goals and contexts.
Overall, we’re pleased with how the matrix has opened up new ways for journalists and newsrooms to think about, identify, and measure the impact of their work,
Q: In your opinion, how can newsrooms ensure their reporting is impactful? What factors contribute to making an impact?
Schiffrin: Simply publishing isn’t enough. The broader ecosystem matters deeply. Many journalists traditionally didn’t see it as their role to ensure impact. They saw their job as reporting; impact was someone else’s responsibility. But if you want to generate change, you need to think more like an advocacy group, identify who needs the information, how to present it in a useful way, and ensure it reaches decision-makers. Outlets like ICIJ do this well by asking: “Is this a systemic problem? Can someone do something about it?”
Our research shows that impact tends to occur when five key conditions are in place. First, there must be mechanisms of redress, meaning the system is capable of responding to the issues that journalism uncovers. Second, responsible institutions such as functioning courts or regulatory bodies need to exist. Third, civil society must be actively involved, including NGOs and advocacy groups already working on the issue. Fourth, change requires the presence of willing individuals in power who are open to reform. And finally, while some level of democracy greatly enhances the chances for impact, journalism can still inform and influence even in closed societies, which in itself represents a meaningful form of impact.
Q: In your book Global Muckraking, you go over countless examples of investigative journalism from global majority countries that had significant impact in the print era. In comparison, what are the key differences between the impact of journalism then and in today’s digital media landscape, particularly in global majority countries?
Schiffrin: The methods and mediums have changed, so I think the nature of journalism has changed.
In the past, it was possible for really big things to just go under the radar for a long time. Uncovering a major story took years, but, if you published an investigation, you knew it would be seen and read and talked about. However, back then we didn’t have the collaborative models that we have now. Cross-border and data-driven reporting didn’t exist in the same way in the past.
Today, it’s much harder to keep things hidden. Although news travels fast due to cell phones, the internet and citizen journalism, it’s often ignored. There’s too much information, and it’s hard to get traction. So that’s a big difference.
Q: Part of our study involved looking at revenue generation as a form of impact. With funding collapses, how does approaching revenue as a form of impact contribute to this conversation and what are possible paths forward?
Schiffrin: In some contexts, staying alive financially is a success metric. However, I haven’t seen convincing evidence that investigative journalism directly drives revenue. Publishers often rely on other content like games, lifestyle, or sports to bring in readers. Journalism is critical, but not always financially lucrative. Donor behavior has contributed to fragmentation – supporting too many startups in markets that can’t sustain them. I’ve long warned that models like memberships and crowdfunding aren’t viable in low-income contexts. I expect more consolidation, some closures, and many journalists working solo or taking pay cuts and still working because they have few options and because they are passionate about the important work they do.