As is noted in
FredPenner's writeup, the term "postmortem" is often used to describe a review or critique that takes place after a particular activity has been completed. While specific reference to
business endeavours were made, it should also be noted that postmortems are regular occurances in the world of journalism. In many cases, they happen every day.
The postmortem is the discussion -- usually among some or all members of the editorial staff -- after the publication of the most recent issue of the paper. It usually takes place the day said issue hits newsstands, if not shortly thereafter. The entire point of a postmortem is that credit be given where credit is due for a job well done and that if mistakes were made, they be learned from. It is also an opportunity for people who are responsible for different aspects of the publication (content, visuals, etc.) to comment on those areas and explain and defend their decisions if necessary.
So... why the death reference?
Because the issue is finished. It is done. Moreover, there is nothing any of the editorial staff members can do by the time the postmortem has rolled around. The issue is on newsstands. Readers are probably handing over exact change so they can purchase a copy as we speak. Discussing the issue right after you've finished the issue and as it heads to press is not a postmortem because there is still a chance, however minute, that you can fix something.
The issue is dead. All you can do is look back, remember it and think about how it's going to change your life next time.
These things sound as though they could be... dramatic
And, indeed, they can be. We're talking about a meeting devoted, at least in part, to what's wrong with the issue those at the table worked very hard to produce. Editors rarely mince words about such things and it can be very difficult to hear blunt criticism of something you may well be proud of.
There's no other way to describe postmortems of a journalistic variety other than to say that if you're in the industry for long enough, you tend to get used to them. One editor's opinion is just as valid as the next's, and most understand that. A postmortem is not a place to blindly insult other people's work. Constructive criticism is what's sought.
How do these work, anyway?
Depends on the publication. If we're talking a magazine or other publication that comes out once every few weeks or months, the postmortem might be a specially scheduled event. A daily newspaper might conduct its postmortem any one of a number of ways. The paper at which I've been interning conducts its postmortem at the morning news meeting when the editors discuss not only that day's edition but what is planned for the next day. The rest of the staff is notified of any pertinent issues that arose during the postmortem in the mass email that also explains which reporters are working on what that day.
Other papers conduct postmortems differently. Some assign the duty of penning a written postmortem to a different editor on a daily basis. The report is then distributed to the masthead and any other staff member who wishes to see it. My journalistic home tried to do things this way sometime last year; three people would be selected from the masthead every week (the paper being a weekly) to compose a postmortem and email it to the rest of the masthead.
While that might work well at a major daily where people's job descriptions include sporadically writing a postmortem, this didn't really cut it at a paper that we were working at on top of other jobs and school, and for which we were receiving minimal pay. People just didn't do it. The paper has since returned to its traditional method -- going through the previous issue page-by-page at the weekly masthead meeting before discussing potential story ideas.
So... people get together and discuss other people's mistakes?
Partially. Depending entirely on the structural makeup of the publication, those who were responsible for its various aspects might not even be at the meeting. Smaller publications may require editors to manage their own content and their own layouts, while larger publications often have separate departments that are usually kept quite separate. It is rare for a publication with an actual layout department to send a great deal of representatives therefrom to a postmortem meeting.
As for the discussion of other people's mistakes, it may sound cruel but sometimes the most effective way to make sure mistakes are never repeated is to ensure that a number of people know about them.
Most of those who have been to a journalistic postmortem are there for the sake of the publication and are willing to take whatever is said about their work with a grain of salt.