| Article Index |
|---|
| Chapter 3: Our changing jobs |
| Work life balance |
| Pay |
| Quality of work/output |
| Part Two |
| Training |
| Morale |
| All Pages |
In October, Essential Media surveyed members online in Australian newsrooms. About 10 per cent of members responded. Respondents were predominantly from print, 71.34 per cent compared to 9.30 per cent who mainly worked online, 11.08 per cent in radio and 8.28 per cent in television. The survey was equally split between organisations of more than 100 journalists and those with less. The survey was designed for comparison with a similar UK survey of National Union of Journalists members. As in the UK, our survey revealed members are keen to learn skills and work on new platforms.
However, it also revealed deep concerns about staffing levels, increased hours and stress. Workloads have increased, but pay hasn’t and there is widespread concern at lack of training. Journalists worry the quality of their work suffers because of the extra demands and the lack of training and there is a general pessimism for the future.
3.1 Workload/Hours/work-life balance
In a perfect world, embracing new media platforms implies extra staff. The extra work to establish and maintain a website, with slideshows, video, blogs and podcasts should require a considerable investment in staff and training to produce new and exciting content.
Experience tells us this does not occur and our survey bears that out. A majority (70.8 per cent) reported an increased workload. 43.11 per cent of them by “a lot”. Only 7.09 per cent reported a decrease.
One respondent feared companies would “push talented journalists away because they will simply get sick of having to do two jobs at once, and leave”, while another wrote: “I’m not improving at the rate I’d like because I’m being expected to deliver content on many platforms rather than put effort into the quality of the story.Research is severely suffering. I don’t think the quality of my work is dropping but I find it hard to improve or to go the extra mile to break stories.”
Asked if hours of paid and unpaid work had increased, 69.7 per cent agreed, 27.62 per cent saying by “a lot”. Again, only 7.81 per cent, reported a decrease and only 2.93 per cent by “a lot”.
“We are constantly being expected to do more, with less staff. It seems like every time we ‘get rid of’ a job, we get lumbered with two more. Also, we have a dearth of experienced journalists – we take on mostly graduates, and they’re expected to take on a lot of responsibility,” wrote one respondent.
Just under half, 49.65 per cent, said working patterns had changed to accommodate new technology.
In terms of work-life balance, 43.06 per cent said they were affected adversely, compared to 18.27 per cent who reported an improvement. Many wrote of lower newsroom morale. Repeatedly, alongside fears regarding work quality, respondents worried their quality of life was being harmed. Others feared extra demands would lead to “burn-out”.
“As a part-timer, because of parental responsibilities, I’m being pressured to work more hours and I fear that if I don’t I’ll be even more marginalised. Despite two requests to editors for online training in the past year I am being overlooked because of my perceived “lack of commitment.”
This tallies with the UK, where 75 per cent reported increased workloads and 37 per cent said they were forced to work longer hours.
3.2 Pay
Very few reported pay rises for working harder, longer or acquiring new skills. Just 13.75 per cent were paid more, while 30.3 per cent took time off in lieu of overtime. Many complained new skills and longer hours were not recognised financially: “Journalists do not get paid enough and so many good journalists have left the company. It is not good enough. We are professionals who are expected to have tertiary qualifications, so the pay needs to reflect this.”
One respondent linked deteriorating conditions to “the workplace becoming more deunionised as new staff members swallow the company line and older staff give up the union fight”.
Another concern was some companies’ push to cull higher-paid journalists in favour of lower-paid newcomers. This was a particular concern at Fairfax after the most recent redundancies lost a generation on Grade 10 (also known as “Super-A Grades”). This, it was felt, put pressure on mid-range journalists to “work up” in senior or demanding roles without adequate compensation. For some years, a common complaint has been promotions without pay rises.
3.3 Quality of work/output
By far the most comments concerned quality suffering due to increased workload. Some 37.95 per cent said their work suffered due to increased hours and workload, while only 19.34 per cent said technology had improved quality.
“I am worried that I won’t be able to deliver the high standard of work I want to deliver as I am required to file for more and more platforms,” wrote one, adding: “While I think online and digital news is important and I consume it extensively myself, we need more people (hopefully with the appropriate specialist skills) to cope with the demands of online and digital, rather than expecting the same number of workers to take on all the extra tasks.”
One reporter worried: “The upshot for print journalists is we are being stretched furtherand further, so our work suffers. Most of us are now doing at least four print stories a day, plus online work, so there is no choice but to put in the minimum number of calls and pump the words out.”
Another feared “internet deadlines will encourage me to write inferior stories with little thought”. Another wrote: “Reduction in staff numbers and quality journalism due to loss of revenue. Some reporters are expected to run opinionated blogs, while writing unbiased news stories on the same subject. This reflects and impacts on journalism standards. Much of the internet material is simply cut and paste rather than real journalism. Reporters do not have enough time to do quality work when their days are divided between supplying newspaper and online copy.”
Many feared shedding production staff (sub-editors, especially) caused more mistakes in print and online, and especially that if quality decline became too obvious, readers would flee: “I am fearful with a trend towards reporters writing directly to the page and online that standards will fall to such a low level that journalism will cease to make a valid contribution to our way of life,” wrote one.
“Quantity over quality,” was a sentiment reported often.
The survey queried the quality of new media content. Some 29.56 per cent found their organisation’s content “professional”, 48.42 per cent “adequate” and 22.02 per cent “poor”.
Yet, when asked about how their organisation’s traditional media output was affected by expansion into new platforms, just 7.35 per cent replied “very positively” and 31.18 per cent said “somewhat positively”.
Marginally more, 7.65 per cent, believed content was affected “very negatively”, while 32.53 per cent said “somewhat negatively”.
One respondent believed commercial reasoning drove their newsroom rather than traditional news values. This followed “panic” at the collapse of the traditional advertising-supported print model: “The demise of print classified advertising leaves the organisation highly exposed and amid the panic this engenders it appears decisions are being made purely on commercial considerations, with less acknowledgement than ever before of the quality of the editorial product, and the history and future of the masthead.
There is a clear requirement to move into the online world editorially, but this is not backed up by a realistic investment in online resources, and the online and print businesses are run entirely separately, with tension and antipathy between the two operations. It is hard to see how a worse situation could exist with regard to this company’s ability to make a transition to the new environment.
The fear of “dumbing down” arose often. One respondent feared: “a website that bears no resemblance to our newspaper, dumbing down the product and totally trashing the brand.
Another wrote: “It’s important that we don’t dumb down too much, and maintain editorial standards - the stories that generate the most hits online are often trashy/sleazy ones … The key difference between professional journalists and all the bloggers and all the amateur net journos is our credibility and that we can deliver properly researched news. If the lines become blurred through dumbing down or inadequate research we’re on a road to ruin. Quality journalism is our salvation, more now than ever.
The accepted industry wisdom is that as audiences fragment, it is more important to maintain quality to protect brand integrity. One of the most common comments on industry blogs is that mainstream media quality has slipped and given people less reasons for buying, viewing or visiting websites.
There is also much fear the growing use of material from untrained, non-professional journalists will adversely affect their organisations’ brands.
In October, The Age asked readers to submit story ideas on an issue traditionally covered by the state parliamentary reporter: “Have you read any of the reports tabled today and think there is a story in it? Let us know at
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
Despite the urging, most editors agreed bloggers and “citizen” or “witness” journalists could never replace trained journalists. “I think it will complement not replace – it will add to the mix – journalists and bloggers provide a lot of different content,” wrote one editor, adding: “The internet is anything goes and has lowered the standard of the mainstream outlets.
Another wrote: “I feel the impact of citizen journalism is overstated. It’s nice to have blogs and pictures filed from mobile phones but citizen journalism is a modern-day form of pamphleteering. You still need editors, production staff and skilled and trained reporters. There is far too much crap masquerading as citizen journalism.
Another editor highlighted that it was reporters’ daily lot to make and cultivate contacts, have training and “live, eat and breathe” journalism.
3.4 Training
One of the biggest concerns involves training – or the lack of it in newsrooms seeking to expand into new platforms and new forms of delivery without paying for new staff. Asked “what sort of training have you received in new media platforms?” only 1.94 per cent replied “very comprehensive – I’m getting all the multi-media skills”. Some 40.72 per cent said “just what I need to do my job.” Distressingly, the majority, 57.34 per cent replied: “None. I’m expected to pick it up as I go along.”
This contrasts dramatically with the UK experience, where 39 per cent had systematic training, 10 per cent training “on request” and 45 per cent training “as and when required”. Only 16 per cent reported no training.
This also contrasted with the US experience noted by the Alliance mission where almost all major companies had introduced significant and continuing training structures.
One journalist feared becoming a “dinosaur” and being left behind as required skills changed. Another that journalists were losing out to “techies”: “My organisation does not train its employees in new media. We are expected to learn it ourselves. When implementing online publications, they employed IT people to do this rather than journalists. Doesn’t look good for the quality of journalism, in magazines at least.” Older journalists fear losing out without training: “The print journalists are not being trained to become online journalists. It seems clear the plan is to get rid of the print journalists and hire cheaper online journalists outside the union award,” wrote one.
Generally, those newsrooms taking the greatest steps towards integration are those whose editors report their staff adapt the best. Older journalists often resist learning a new set of skills. One weekly editor wrote: “Reporting staff and editors have embraced (change) well. On community papers, it gives the reporters a chance to file breaking news daily, rather than waiting for the weekly paper cycle. Photographers are also filing daily and have shifted their focus well.”
This is to be expected, as weekly and monthly journalists can now break news stories, a bugbear in the past. Newspapers keeping barriers between online and print staff report a cultural divide. However editors’ general tone is confident.
3.5 Morale
The digital revolution is both exciting and full of trepidation for people in the industry. Asked about career prospects, 19.35 per cent said they were excited to move into a new age of journalism.
Considerably more, 35.03 per cent, were pessimistic about their jobs, and 39.35 per cent were resigned to working with change. Some 6.27 per cent had not considered it.
Morale was harmed by Fairfax redundancies and talk of lay-offs elsewhere.
“I honestly don’t think I will have a job in the next year or two,” wrote one journalist, while another hoped his organisation “lasts long enough for me to leave the industry at a time of my choosing, not the company’s”.
Freelance members who commented on the survey worried lay-offs at mainstream organisations would deny them sufficient work.
Many linked quality and morale: “Cost cutting has led to reduced staff, while roles have expanded, which is greatly affecting the quality of the paper. Morale in the newsroom is also very low,” wrote a print journalist
