 We very much need a different model for journalism today because the old model is not working on several different levels. What the conversation does that's so different is that we're really deputizing all the academics in the country. That's our newsroom. We have about 65 universities that are supporting members of the conversation. We actually go to the experts, the academics, who study something intensely, have evidence to back it up, and then they work with our journalists rigorously to develop a story that then goes out to the general public in a way that everyone can read it. And that's a special sauce. The changes that we're seeing are not just about economics. One of the critical elements in the partnership between universities and journalism is that it strengthens both parts of the partnership at a time when every institution, including higher education and including journalism, is under attack. Democracy needs credible journalism, and I think we're helping to re-establish that credibility. When we train in academia, we're so used to writing for science journals. Writing for the public gets very different. I have to be a little mindful of what I'm saying and try to use examples that are a lot more accessible to a wider community. The best part about working with the conversation is that it's collaborative and you're working with a person who's very invested in getting your work out there. I've been surprised at how grateful the scholars have been for the editing that we do. We are not going to dumb it down. That's something that a scholar will appreciate. It also means that more republishers will pick up their stories and they'll get wider distribution. Every day we publish 10, going up to 12 stories on the Associated Press Wire to hundreds of news outlets. We're talking The Washington Post, Smithsonian, you know little tiny papers across all of America. You write for the conversation, but you're not writing for us. You're writing for the most demographically diverse readers of any media outlet in the country, period. What's been really interesting about writing for the conversation is that I feel like I have more impact. I get really hit home when the Boston Globe wanted to pick up the story. I believe now it's over 91,000 people that have read that one piece. My ultimate goal is reaching as a broad audience as we can. After my first article I got phone calls and emails from people I have no idea who they are. One of the proudest moments I had was working with a scholar at Howard University, which is one of the nation's leading historically black colleges. And we got two stories published in The Washington Post, like back to back. That represents a victory for us in terms of getting scholars that you might not hear about into the public domain. Captain, do you all want to start? So we have this piece that we've been working on about religious beliefs, historically, and what the impact that they have on epidemics. One thing the conversation is trying to do is trying to find those gaps in journalism that are not being covered anymore because of the financial crisis. And one area that I'm particularly proud of is our religion coverage. We at the conversation look at it in a very interdisciplinary way. A religion in politics, religion in art, you know, it's just across disciplines. This opportunity to provide more and better and more targeted information is something that is essential for the maintenance of American democracy. We gather in a room, we share ideas, and we create evidence-based journalism every single day. We're beginning a conversation.