|
 <
Previous | Next >
| Home
Introduction
| Commentary
| Survey Findings | Methodology
| Questionnaire
Press Going Too Easy on Bush
Bottom-Line Pressures Now Hurting Coverage, Say
Journalists
by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
Overview
Section I: Views on Performance
Section II: Covering
the President and the Campaign
Section III: Today's Changing Newsroom
Section IV: Values and
the Press
NOTE: This report is also available on
the Pew Research Center Web
site.
Section III: Today's Changing Newsroom
Newsroom staff cutbacks are hitting print journalism at
both the national and local level. About half of respondents
working at newspapers or magazines (48% nationally, 54% locally)
say the size of their newsroom staff has decreased in the
past three years. Relatively few in the print sector are seeing
growth in the number of staff.
The picture is more mixed in television and radio, with
about equal numbers saying their newsrooms are growing as
shrinking. About half (47%) of those in national broadcast
media say there has been no change in staffing compared with
three years ago.
One significant change in the news business is growth in
the practice of repackaging and repurposing news stories for
multiple uses. About half of both national and local respondents
(48% each) say they are doing this more now than in the past;
print and broadcast journalists at each level are similar
in this respect.
At the same time, relatively few voice unhappiness with
this trend, with the notable exception of local broadcast
reporters. Three-in-ten local TV reporters (29%) say they
are unhappy over repackaging stories for multiple purposes.
That compares with only about one-in-ten national radio and
TV news people, and similar percentages of national and local
print journalists.
Most journalists today give good ratings to the quality
of leadership in their own organizations, a view that has
changed little since 1999. At the national level, 30% of news
professionals say their management is doing an excellent job,
and 41% say they are doing a good job. There is relatively
little difference between national print and broadcast media
in leadership ratings. But over half of executives at the
national level say the quality of leadership is excellent
(and 38% rate it as good). Senior newsroom staff and line
journalists are less positive.
At the local level, 22% overall rate leadership as excellent,
and nearly half (47%) say the quality is good. Ratings are
higher among local newspaper journalists than among those
in television and executives rate leadership more positively
than reporters and producers.
Training and professional development programs are fairly
common in newsrooms today. About half (47%) of national journalists
and 56% of local journalists say they have participated in
such activities provided by their news organization in the
past twelve months. Among those who have taken part in training,
close to half say they participated in such a program for
five days or more over the past year.
Executives and senior editors and producers are more likely
than line staff to report having taken part in professional
development activity. Respondents who have participated in
training rate their own news organization's management more
highly than those who have not participated, and this is especially
true of reporters.
In a related area, large majorities of respondents (76%
nationally and 77% locally) say there are ongoing management
efforts to address ethical issues in their newsroom, about
the same as in 1999. As with training and professional development,
those who report that their organizations are engaged in this
activity rate their management more favorably.
Internet's Impact Mostly Positive
Most news professionals (60% at the national level, 51%
locally) say the emergence of the Internet has made journalism
better; very few say it has hurt journalism. These views are
fairly similar to those expressed by journalists in 1999.
More local journalists say the Internet has had either a positive
or negative impact, with higher percentage today saying it
has made journalism worse (18% compared with 8% in 1999).
Only local news executives are divided over the Internet's
impact: 31% say it has been good for journalism; 27% view
it negatively.
Not surprisingly, enthusiasm about the Internet is greatest
among younger respondents in the survey. More than seven-in-ten
(72%) of those under 35 years of age think the Internet has
been good for the profession; just 13% view it negatively.
Journalists age 35 and older also have a generally positive
view of the Internet's impact, though by a much smaller margin
(54% better, 15% worse).
Changes for the Better
Those who believe the Internet has helped journalism most
frequently cite its power as a research tool. Nearly half
of those who see a positive impact of the Internet mention
some aspect of the Internet as a convenient place to find
timely information, to get data at any hour of the day, and
to do fact-checking on deadline. Those who work for local
news organizations are especially likely to mention this benefit
of the Internet (61% of local vs. 47% of national and 16%
of Internet journalists).
Another widely noted positive impact of the Internet is
its ability to deliver information to the public more quickly
and to promote greater competition among news organizations.
This view is much more prevalent among print journalists than
among those working in TV and radio. A frequent comment within
this theme is that print journalism now has the ability to
compete with television and radio for breaking news. Also,
the speed of the Internet in delivering information was the
single most cited benefit among journalists who work primarily
on their organization's websites.
About one-in-five say the Internet has helped journalism
by making far more information available to the public, and
by helping to improve the accuracy of the information. A related
notion, mentioned about as often, is that the Internet has
broadened the range of outlets and voices available to the
public. This includes more points of view, deeper stories,
and coverage of topics and stories that otherwise would not
have fit into existing time and space available. These changes
have forced journalism to be more innovative and responsive
to the public; one respondent said the Internet has "democratized
the press."
A less common argument for why the web has made journalism
better is that the Internet has made journalism more accountable
by enabling the public - and other journalists - to more easily
verify the accuracy of information and communicate these concerns
directly to those who produced a report. Only around one-in-twenty
who see the web as having had a positive influence make this
case.
Changes for the Worse
Those who think the Internet has been bad for journalism
most often cite the fact that it promotes the spread of unvetted
and unfiltered information to the public; nearly half (53%
national, 45% local) cite this concern. Others express a related
concern about the speed and pressure of the Internet leading
to too many factual errors in news coverage (17% national,
29% local).
Another concern raised by some is that the Internet has
promoted the rise of pseudo-journalism, "junk" sites,
and low-brow news. One negative consequence cited by several
respondents is that "news" reported on these sites
force mainstream journalists to waste time chasing down baseless
rumors and innuendo. In a similar vein, a smaller group refers
specifically to the Internet having damaged the credibility
of journalism in the mind of the public.
Around one-in-ten who see the Internet as having a bad influence
on journalism say the web has made journalists lazy by allowing
them to do research at their desks rather than going out into
the field, with some specifically stating that the Internet
has made plagiarism too easy.
Internet's Downside
The survey's respondents were asked specifically about two
issues related to the growth of the Internet: increased deadline
pressures, and the potential spread of misinformation and
rumors into the news. Majorities of both print and broadcast
journalists say that the Internet has increased the amount
of bad information that finds its way into news stories. Overall,
65% of national journalists and 57% of local journalists agree;
smaller numbers think there has been no change (31% nationally,
38% locally). Hardly anyone thinks the Internet has reduced
the amount of misinformation in circulation, though only 38%
of those working with websites think the problem is worse
because of the Internet.
But there is a considerable difference of opinion on the
Internet's impact on deadline pressures. Majorities overall
believe the Internet has neither increased nor decreased such
pressures (55% of national respondents, 60% of local respondents
feel this way). Hardly anyone thinks deadline pressures have
declined, and 42% at the national level and 35% at the local
level say the pressure is greater.
Within these averages there is a great deal of variation
by type of medium and by job title. At both the national and
local level, print journalists are far more likely than TV
and radio journalists to say deadline pressure has been increased
by the Internet. National media executives are more likely
than their editors or line journalists to feel this way. And,
perhaps not surprisingly, those whose principal job responsibility
is Internet-based journalism are the most likely to feel greater
deadline pressures (78%).
Journalists in the Online Sector
The poll included a separate sample of 68 journalists whose
job responsibilities include managing, editing, or writing
for the online outlets of national and local news organizations.
Job titles for this group of respondents included "online
content manager," "online editor," "website
manager," and the like.
For the most part, online journalists are not significantly
different from others demographically with the exception of
age. The average age of respondents in the Internet group
is 42, compared with 46 among the rest of the sample. Similarly,
those working in online jobs had an average of 18 years experience,
compared with 22 years for the rest of the respondents. More
say they have undergone training or professional development
activities provided by their organization (66% vs. 52%). And
far more say the Internet has increased their deadline pressures.
Given the evolving nature of news organizations' websites,
it is no surprise that those in the online sector say they
are doing more repackaging of stories than in the past: 71%,
versus 48% for other journalists. But more are happy about
the change than unhappy by a margin of five-to-one (44% vs.
9%).
In most cases, the opinions of online journalists track
closely with non-Internet journalists regarding the state
of the profession, the reasons for declining audiences, the
validity of criticisms about journalism, the quality of their
own news organization, and their own personal and political
values. They are somewhat more likely than their counterparts
who work in broadcasting to say journalists have become out
of touch with their audiences, and to offer that a boring
and static news product is one reason some media are facing
declining audiences, but many print journalists share this
concern. In that vein, more online journalists than others
in both print and broadcasting see the changing media environment
as the biggest problem facing journalism.
Not surprisingly, most of the key differences between the
views of online journalists and others pertain to the role
of the Internet itself. One of the biggest differences is
that majorities (57%) of those whose principal job is not
in online journalism say the Internet allows too much posting
of links to material that is unfiltered or unvetted; just
28% of those working in the sector agree that this is a valid
criticism. Similarly, far more of those who do not primarily
work on their news organization's website say the Internet
has allowed more misinformation to find its way into news
stories (61%, compared with just 38% among online journalists).
And fewer Internet than non-Internet journalists say the Internet
has hurt journalism (3% versus 16%).
[top]
<
Previous | Next >
| Home
Introduction
| Commentary
| Survey Findings | Methodology
| Questionnaire
|
Back
to Journalism.org
