Those of us who monitor the pulse of journalism know of at least a handful of high-profile success stories of such convergent news operations. Media General’s Tampa, Florida, facility was one of the first to bring print, broadcast and online staffers under one roof dubbed the “News Center.” As part of Media General’s convergence efforts, journalists from the Tampa Tribune, WFLA-TV, and Tampa Bay Online came together to share news content (Colon, 2000). On June 2, 2003, the Federal Communications Commission approved sweeping changes in media ownership rules. A single company can now own broadcast TV stations that reach 45 percent of U.S. households. The previous cap was 35 percent. Futhermore, under new regulations, it is now permissible for a company to own several TV stations, radio stations, and the only daily newspaper in the same market. However, some restrictions on cross-ownership remain in the smallest markets (CNN, 2003). These rule changes could fuel more convergent news operations. NOTE** On September 3rd, 2003, the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals halted implementation of the rule changes pending a full review.*** But what does this type of activity mean for the future of journalism? That is the research question we will address in this study: Has a monumental shift occurred, has convergence journalism gone beyond experiment to become the status quo? This information is crucial because it will help us know unequivocally whether journalism has crossed a new threshold. And to that end, our findings will serve as a tool to help journalism educators and industry leaders respond to that change. Literature Review Previous academic research anticipated the convergence trend. “Digital communications encourages and requires students-and-professors to think in multiple dimensions: aural (listening to radio and television content, perhaps even sound effects embedded in text), visual (reading text and viewing video), and tactile (with an active media interface)” (Thompson, 1995). The trade press also closely covered the first industry experiments in convergence journalism. Much of this coverage presented the philosophical questions surrounding any news industry trend: Will convergence work, and how? (Barnhart, 1999). Will it help the industry or hurt it? And if it does help, who will benefit most, company executives and shareholders, or front-line journalists and the public they serve? (Tompkins, 2001). Other reports told the stories of news organizations and journalism schools that had embraced the convergence model, the steps they had taken, the lessons they had learned (Harvey, 2000). These anecdotes and debates have enhanced our understanding of convergence, but a more systematic, comprehensive study of the current landscape is needed. A United States study was conducted in 2002 to examine convergence efforts in television newsrooms. The research paper explored how TV news directors defined convergence and how it is being practiced the nation’s TV newsrooms. Researchers found that “nearly nine of ten (88.8%, 150) news directors said they are currently practicing a type of convergence” (Forte Duhe’, et al., 2002). As this paper was being written, however, no research that examines the entire scope of convergence efforts among the industry and the academy has appeared in any of the journals dedicated to scholarship in journalism and mass communication. Journalism educators and industry leaders need this map to guide us as we decide whether and how to move from training journalists who know one delivery system – print, broadcast and, increasingly, online – to convergence journalists who may specialize in one system but are proficient in all three. Research Questions The study’s focus is exploratory: to determine the extent to which both media companies and university journalism schools around the country have embraced convergence journalism. Within the industry, for instance, how many organizations have changed their newsgathering practices or forged partnerships to facilitate content sharing and/or multi-platform delivery? Likewise, how many journalism departments have overhauled their course offerings to prepare students for a professional environment where the ideal job candidate can produce content for print, broadcast and online distribution? And are media companies and universities plunging into convergence journalism or merely getting their feet wet? Study Participants & Methodology To conduct this study, three different groups were surveyed: newspaper executive editors, television news managers, and journalism school deans or department chairs. To select our sample, we identified the 210 largest U.S. media markets, based on rankings provided by Nielsen Media Research (Nielsen, 2002). We randomly chose one TV station from each market. We then selected the largest daily newspaper, based on circulation, from the same 210 markets. To identify undergraduate journalism departments, we turned to U.S. News & World Report magazine’s annual rankings and included all national universities in the top four tiers, which equals roughly 240 (U.S. News, 2002). Colleges and universities in the initial sample that did not have full-fledged undergraduate journalism divisions were excluded from the study. To conduct our research, we enlisted the assistance of The Linda and Mitch Hart eCenter at Southern Methodist University. An 18-question survey was emailed in October 2002 to the sample of newspaper editors and TV news directors from the top 210 markets. A 33-question survey was also emailed to the sample of deans and division chairs of 105 undergraduate journalism programs. In November 2002, a second round of emails was sent to those who had not responded to the first survey request. In order to improve response rates, a final round of follow up phone calls was conducted and concluded in January 2003. Researchers obtained a 40 percent response rate from the newspaper sample, a 38 percent response rate from the television sample, and a 46 percent response rate from the university sample. Just over a third of television stations in the sample, 37.25 percent, are in large markets (1-50 based on Nielsen ratings). Just under a third, 29.41 percent, represent mid-sized markets (51-100). The remaining third of the stations, 33.34 percent, are in small markets (101 or higher). Mid-sized papers represented most of the newspaper sample. Just under half, 45.59 percent, have circulations from 25,000 to 74,999. Nearly that many, 44.12 percent, have circulations between 75,000 and 149,999. Around 6 percent (5.88 percent) of the sample is newspapers in the 10,000 to 24,999 circulation category, and another 4.41 percent are in the 150,000+ category. Among the university journalism programs included in the sample, 38.10 percent are stand-alone divisions that are not part of a larger school or college of communication, 40.48 percent are part of a school or college of communication, and 21.42 percent represent a school of journalism. Of those programs, around 19 percent have fewer than 100 majors, 37 percent have at least 100 but fewer than 500 majors, 28 percent have at least 500 but fewer than 1,000 majors, and 16 percent have 1,000 majors or more.