| Article Index |
|---|
| Chapter 3: Our changing jobs |
| Work life balance |
| Pay |
| Quality of work/output |
| Part Two |
| Training |
| Morale |
| All Pages |
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”.
