4.8 Quality
One of the hardest measures in journalism is quality. Washington’s Project for Excellence in Journalism is developing metrics of quality (eg number of sources, right of reply, comment etc) and hopes to incorporate the results in its annual state-of-the-media report. It is generally seen that fewer staff and more deadlines are affecting quality. Most Australian editors surveyed acknowledged this, fearing financial constraints would put pressure on quality. “Financial pressure has affected the quality of our journalism,” one editor wrote. “You could always do with more money, although we have stood up quite well in terms of integrating the newsrooms – online and print.” Another wrote: “Sigh… not enough time or people around so we can’t invest in extra drafts, spike stories that don’t work well, or plan big.”
A constant refrain was cuts to reporting and production staff would undermine quality: “Staff vacancies are usually filled with someone of less experience to save money,” wrote one editor, while another wrote: “Less time, more make do, sloppier reporting and presentation, less inquiry.” Editors were divided on whether the economic model traditionally supporting print journalism could transfer online.
One was concerned at the rush to free online content: “It’s too late to coherently offer user-pay services”, while another, confident online news would eventually be paid for said: “I cannot see its revenue surpassing print for many years, especially if online starts paying the true cost of its content.” However, generally, editors see a demand for quality news and information, “especially from a trusted source” – what mainstream newspapers and broadcasters still represent for the majority.
