editorsweblog

NYT digital news editor on integration: gradual is successful

Wed, 14 May 2008 10:56:58 +0000

Jim Roberts, digital news editor at The New York Times, will speak of the newsroom integration process undergone by the paper of record at the upcoming World Editors Forum, to be held June 1-4 in Gothenburg, Sweden.

He'll describe the last 3 years at the Times, as "it has attempted to make what I consider to be a historic shift in its mission," towards a much more rounded and "almost platform-agnostic" approach.

Roberts isn't one of those online editors who have an instinctive aversion for print, to the contrary - he worked as a print journalist and editor, as well as a National news editor at the Times. Although he resists calling the Times 'print-centric', it's a fact that print still accounts for over 80% of the company's revenues, and that "our main mission still is putting out a print publication," he said.

One key factor in the NYT's integration process was the gradual approach adopted by the newspaper, instead of "a radical shakeup" - similar to the Guardian's approach in that respect.

"There was a change in newsroom culture and it had its rocky moments, I certainly can't minimize that," said Roberts.

But "We haven't ordered anyone to focus on digital journalism to the exclusion of everything else." Instead, "We've encouraged people to think of Web as one of an array of tools and outlets to report the news."

Here are some of the other factors that made the Times' integration approach successful, in Roberts' view:

- The creation of a Continuous News Desk, in 1999, first appealed to foreign correspondents. With the help of staff based in New York, the reporters could publish stories online that could instantly be read by their sources. This established the foundations for print reporters seeking the advantages of online.

- Not having evolved through edicts, but by engaging staff's brains: give the print reporters the necessary tools.

- Teaching journalists that the Web can mean more and better ways to tell stories.

- Two years ago, the Times 'planted' multimedia editors at each news desk. This led to increased print-online collaboration on stories and to successful enterprise-type projects, where the Web content complemented the print articles, and vice versa (see this multimedia project about prisoners that were exonerated by DNA evidence, which complemented ex-prisoner profiles in the print edition).

- Roberts' own print background, thus trusting relationship with the paper's reporters. "One of my chores has been to eliminate the fear aspect of it (writing for the Web)."

- Last but not least, tell reporters that if they don't report online, their competitors will: "If I could point to one thing that has really worked, it is appealing to reporters' competitive instincts."

Roberts will speak in the second session of the World Editors Forum, entitled "Are integrated newsrooms really working?" View other interviews in this preview series by clicking here.

Source: Jim Roberts, Digital News Editor, The New York Times

Mint: setting ethical standards for editorial in India

Mon, 12 May 2008 13:53:03 +0000

Launched in February 2007 as a joint venture between Hindustan Times Media and The Wall Street Journal, Mint, India's English-language business daily, has quickly grown its circulation (from 80,000 at launch to 122,000 copies) and readership, and soon plans to launch new editions in Delhi and Mumbai.

However, according to Managing Editor Raju Narisetti, Mint has had to develop several quality editorial practices in order to distinguish itself from the average newspaper market in India, where some standards of editorial independence and quality reporting lack - and paid editorial content is common practice.

Narisetti will describe Mint's doings at the upcoming World Editors Forum to be held in Gothenburg, Sweden, from June 1 to 4.

To face these ethical dilemmas, Mint implemented several strategies, including publishing a clearly stated corrections policy and code of conduct, easily accessible on the website.

Recently Narisetti wrote an editorial that recapped the number of errors that had been made (mostly factual: gender, titles, dates...). "A lot of papers make errors, we are the only ones who are honest enough to admit it," he said.

"The credibility of media is pretty low in India," said Narisetti. "One of the largest media companies in India actually has a rate card where you can buy coverage."

Some companies, partly held by equity stakes, openly publicize their owners' brands in their publications.

So how can Mint, and the Indian press as a whole, revamp its credibility?

"I'm sorry to say that, but the general consensus in India seems to be that readers don't care, so it doesn't matter."

"Until Mint came along, nobody covered media as an industry, he said."

"There was a gentleman's agreement that you won't write about another newspaper, so that allowed a lot of people to get away doing whatever they want."

Despite his skepticism, Narisetti said: "one of the hopes is that as a lot of western companies form media partnerships in India... that they will also bring in standards and ethics."

No doubt this hope is partly fueled by his own experience. Prior to editing Mint, Narisetti had a 14-year stint at the Wall Street Journal, where he became Editor of Wall Street Journal Europe.

Thanks to this heritage, he remains confident Mint's emphasis on quality will pay. "It's not an easy sell per say, but it's worth doing it because I think long term credibility of the industry is much more important than taking shortcut measures."

Source: Raju Narisetti, Managing Editor, Mint

US Study Tour in pictures

Fri, 09 May 2008 14:28:17 +0000

The following is a brief narrative of the last World Editors Forum Study Tour in the US. We accompanied 26 newspaper editors through some of the most advanced newsrooms in the area, including Reuters, the Associated Press and The New York Times in New York, The News-Journal in Wilmington, and the Politico and Washington Post Newsweek Interactive in Washington D.C. (not all are depicted).

Created with Admarket's flickrSLiDR.

It seems the only way to make captions appear is by clicking on the pictures - and pausing the slideshow. Captions are included below too:

- After having visited Reuters, AP deputy managing editor Tom Kent and others gave us the tour of the Associated Press' new integrated newsroom...
- ...which spans over plus 100,000 square feet on an open-floor plan.
- The main feature of the new design was spatial flexibility...
- ...and, at times, the newsroom may resemble a construction site. But, Kent assured, this didn't disturb journalists' work.
- Another feature at AP: editors have two working spaces. They can work outside the closed office, preferably, to be closer to their staffers...
- ...but they can also use their private office if need be.
- The tour ended by AP's video production control rooms.
- At the New York Times...
- ...editors got a glimpse of the brand-new newsroom...
- ...and its modern design and architecture.
- NYT Futurist Michael Rogers treated us to the Times' top-floor research labs...
- ...lined with tech gadgets...
- ...that thrilled the editors.
- On our way to D.C., we stopped by Gannett's innovative News Journal...
- ...where editors greeted us warmly around the central hub...
- ...showed us their video studio...
- ...explained the editing work...
- ...and how the website has set up databases...
- ...and implemented mobile journalism.
- In Washington, we visited the Washington Post's online newsroom.
- Here again, a hub-like centre...
- ...and plenty of video equipment.
- The tour ended with a visit at the recently inaugurated Newseum...
- ...and the editors flew home.

6) Newsroom Barometer: threats to newspapers, areas of investment, more results

Wed, 07 May 2008 14:56:23 +0000

There has been a lot of coverage of the results of the Newsroom Barometer, including Reuters' own take on the findings.

If you haven't taken a look at the main findings (namely editors' massive acceptation of the integrated newsroom model, as well as about half of them believing news will be free in the future and that online will be the most common platform for news), you can read more below:

Read Part 1: Presentation - main results, the integrated newsroom will be the norm
Read Part 2: Multimedia, multi-skilled and integrated
Read Part 3: The future of the press
Read Part 4: Who participated in the survey?
Read Part 5: Comments by John Zogby and WEF President George Brock
Read Part 6: Threats to newspapers, areas of investment, more results

But here are a few more results that may have gone under the radar.

If provided resources to invest in editorial quality, what would you do first within the newsroom?

Across all categories, the responses illustrated two clear concerns for editors, which superceded all others: their staff needs to be attuned to new media (36% of the respondents would first train their staff in new media), and they need more journalists to produce quality coverage (30%, up from 22% last year). As more newsrooms face layoffs and tight budgets, editors are increasingly seeking to safeguard one of the main conditions to quality journalism: a team of qualified journalists.

For editors from newspapers whose number of journalists had decreased, their main priority was to recruit more journalists, at 50%, while also recognizing the necessity of new media training, at 31%. Even among newspapers whose staff had increased, 26% of editors wished to recruit more journalists (36% new media training).

This clearly shows that, in the view of editors, cutting staff and journalistic resources is not a solution - to the contrary - to resolve financial concerns a newspaper may have.

Overall, what do you view as the two greatest threats to the future of your newspaper?

57% of respondents saw the biggest threat to the future of newspapers coming from declining readership among young people. One of the greatest challenges faced by newspapers today is structural, linked to a change in habits among readers, as they become consumers of alternative forms of media.
Tied to this, a good share of respondents (37%) saw the Internet and digital media as a threat. This was closely followed by lack of editorial innovation (36%) and lack of investment (29%), which are also inter-related.

The results showed a split between perception of threats as being external, due to contextual evolutions of the market (young readership decline, digital media) and internal, due to lack of newspaper innovation - or the financial means to innovate.

Now looking specifically to your newspaper's editorial independence in the future, what do you view as the principal threat?

Perceived threats to editorial independence ranged relatively closely from 13% who listed 'other' concerns, to 23% who thought the biggest pressure would come from advertisers, through 19% who listed political pressure and 20% shareholder pressure (20%). Still, a combined 42% perceived the main threat as being related to newspapers' financial dependence, whether on shareholders and advertisers.

Where newspapers were heavily capitalized in the stock market, such as in Western Europe and North America, shareholder pressure was strong, 35% and 23% respectively, but political pressure didn't pose any threat - 3% for both.

Inversely, in many other regions, financial pressures were less important, but lack of press freedom led many editors to fear political pressure.

Do you think that in the future opinion and analysis pages will:

The results were stable compared to 2006. Two thirds (67%) of the respondents believed opinion and analysis pages would increase: many foresaw the upcoming evolution of newspaper content, which will be less about factual news and more about analysis and commentary.

An astonishingly small number of respondents from North America (50%) believed analysis and opinion would increase, compared to 76% for Western Europe (and 78% Eastern). This large difference underlines a divergence in editors' perception of the function their newspapers will have in the future, whether these increasingly focus on constant breaking news or instead turn to more analytical, magazine-type content. These results also reflect worries by American editors about having the proper resources to increase their opinion and analytical content.

If you would like more information about the Newsroom Barometer, don't hesitate to contact us. And let's not forget that the bright revelation of Barometer, as was the case last year, was that 84% of newspaper editors are optimistic about their newspaper's future, despite frequent doom and gloom reports...

5) Newsroom Barometer: Analysis by John Zogby and George Brock

Tue, 06 May 2008 09:53:31 +0000

In this section, John Zogby, CEO of Zogby International, and George Brock, World Editors Forum President and editor of the Saturday Times in the UK, comment on the results of the 2008 Newsroom Barometer. Both agree that the results show editors have opened to the new necessities of the digital age, while remaining strongly conscious of the possible threats to their newspapers and journalism.

(View the main results to this year's survey here.)

According to Brock, this year's survey points to the fact that "editors remain confident about a mixed-media future and have quietly got on with the business of integrating their newsrooms," but this is "tempered by anxiety that newspapers are not investing enough in recruitment and training for the future."

The path is clear for many editors: integrate the newsroom, think multimedia, train or hire a team of multi-skilled journalists. So are the threats: lack of investment, lack of training, lack of cultural change.

In the face of these deep changes for the newspaper industry and its organization, editors may often face managerial resistance to undergo these investments. But media companies must be bold. Their editors, for the most part, are ready to be. Said Brock: "I read the message of this year's Newsroom Barometer as an appeal from editors to their companies to be bold in the face of change and as a sign that they themselves intend to make the most of new opportunities."

For Zogby, who goes into more detail about the numeric results (see below), this year's results show that editors have adapted or are adapting to the current redefinition of the 4th Estate, the press, in light of the changes brought in part by the Internet.

"Perhaps the most important finding to emerge from the 2008 survey is that editors remain optimistic about the futures of their papers," as was the case for the previous edition of the Newsroom Barometer, wrote Zogby.

Yet this optimism shouldn't hide the urgency for newspapers to rethink their model. "For these editors the future is self-evident and our survey shows that they see the writing on the newsroom wall. The evolution of the 4th Estate is no longer questions of if, when or how. Editors now know the solution: Innovate. Integrate. Or perish."

Read Brock and Zogby's full comments below.

Comments on the 2008 Newsroom Barometer by George Brock

Editors remain confident about a mixed-media future and have quietly got on with the business of integrating their newsrooms. The optimism is not universal and it is tempered by anxiety that newspapers are not investing enough in recruitment and training for the future.

Newspaper managements might reply that investment remains risky when it isn't yet clear where the income from digital publishing is supposed to come from. But newspaper businesses are made by content which creates and sustains demand. The first newspapers did not come about when someone assembled advertising platforms, distribution networks and hardware and afterwards looked for content to put into that system.

The sequence of events was the reverse. Somebody wants to tell as many people as possible something of interest or importance, discovers a sustained curiosity in that information or opinion and eventually a publishing operation grows up to supply the demand. The chain reaction is sparked by interest in the story, view, picture, interview, column, cartoon that's on offer. Without that first moment of ignition, nothing else happens.

You think this sounds a little basic? It is. But you would be surprised how often this simple reality is forgotten as today's media businesses struggle to adapt to a world in which digital technology is rewriting the economics of news publishing.

Online news and opinion has now been with us for long enough to see that no prediction about the future of news which is based on technology alone can tell us the future. Newspapers are not just ink marks on squashed trees: they are what people trust, they amuse people, in short they are a collection of ideas and information with which a reader forms a relationship. Where journalism - whether professional, citizen or any mixture of the two - creates that relationship, something lasting is born and can be sustained. You can see examples of success and failure both online and in print. As the first flush of online innovation and enthusiasm wears off, we can see more clearly that some of the online successes will grow very big indeed, but that only the best will prosper. Making information available - and the web makes it available as never before - does not make it wanted. Newspapers which innovate and adapt will also survive because their qualities are more important than the medium. Some of the failures in both online and print will be terminal.

I read the message of this year's Newsroom Barometer as an appeal from editors to their companies to be bold in the face of change and as a sign that they themselves intend to make the most of new opportunities. Most editors are clear that the essential qualities of good journalism can adapt to a new medium. They accept as a fact needing no further debate that their papers will now reach their constituency by several channels and not by one.

Redefining the 4th Estate: Opinions of the Editors by John Zogby

In the 550 years since the first pages of print rolled off the presses in the Bavarian town of Mainz, printed news evolved relatively unimpeded. Even the invention and proliferation of radio and television failed to stymie the growth of newspapers, largely due to the ability of newspapers to provide more in-depth coverage.

The centuries-long hegemony of the ink and paper news model today faces its greatest threat--the advent of an independent and free Internet-based media. This threat was evidenced at the height of the 2005 British elections with the publication of the 'Downing Street Memo' by The Sunday Times. That short but potent document presented potentially damning evidence surrounding the planning in the run-up to the Iraq War, and while British papers seized the story, the leaked memo made only slight ripples in the American print media. It did create, however, a surge within the rapidly developing blog community who used the lack of traditional media coverage as a call to arms.

Now, as the Internet struggles to define itself in the shadow of the Fourth Estate, the question remains: will these two mediums continue to battle for supremacy or will they find stability in an integrated symbiotic relationship? To help bring clarity to this question, Zogby International was commissioned by the World Editors Forum and Reuters to survey 704 newspaper editors worldwide for the second in a series of annual 'Newsroom Barometer Surveys.'

    Perhaps the most important finding to emerge from the 2008 survey is that editors remain optimistic about the futures of their papers. As in the 2006 Newsroom Barometer, nearly all editors (84%) are optimistic about the future of their paper. The editors surveyed are as aware of what the future may hold for their industry as they are unified in their recognition of the underlying threats and potential solutions.

The Future

    The majority of editors (56%) now believe that most news (print and online) will be free in the future--up from 48% in 2006. Nearly two-in-three editors (63%) believe that within a decade the most common form of news consumption will be some form of electronic media--whether online (44%), mobile (12%) or through newer electronic media like e-papers and tablets (7%). Less than a third (31%) believe print will remain the most common form of consumption.

    The perception of editors with respect to the future is not limited to the news product itself. The overwhelming majority (83%) agree that within 5 years their nation's journalist workforce will be expected to know how to produce content for all platforms (e.g., print, video, audio and web). Still, perception of the future is but one dimension of the story -- the remainder is defined by the threats to the industry and how editors address those threats.

The Threats

    By-and-large editors agree on the nature of the threats posed to their industry. The decline in youth readership (58%), the rise in Internet and digital media (38%) and the lack of editorial innovation (36%) all speak to the consensus that change is imminent. These editors tell us their chief sources of pressure are from advertisers (22%), shareholders (20%) and political forces (19%). All pressure, no doubt, to confront the changing reality through innovation and integration.

    On one issue editors paint a mixed picture--the current state of their newsroom. For some (39%) circulation in the past year is up; for others (29%) it is down. One-third of editors (33%) have added journalists, a quarter have lost journalists (24%) and for the rest (42%) the number of journalists on their staff remains unchanged from a year ago.

The Solutions

    When a majority of editors (54%) report that they have an integrated newsroom, they may make such statements not necessarily based on the reality, but also out of necessity. Regardless of whether integration has or has not occurred, nearly all (86%) agree that it will be the norm in the near future. Editors also agree on the steps needed to address other threats. Asked what investments they would make in their newsroom given the opportunity, the top two investments cited--training journalists in new media (36%) and recruitment of new journalists (31%)--demonstrate that editors are looking to make a commitment to the future. And with the recognition that editorial innovation is needed, 69% of editors agree that opinion and analysis pages will play an increasingly larger role in the future.

Yes, editors are optimistic about the future of their papers, but they are also aware of the potential danger on the horizon. Less than half (45%) believe the quality of journalism will improve over the next year. More than a quarter (28%) believe the quality will worsen; a finding reflected in the high level of importance editors place on the need for investment in training and recruitment.

For these editors the future is self-evident and our survey shows that they see the writing on the newsroom wall. The evolution of the 4th Estate is no longer questions of if, when or how. Editors now know the solution: Innovate. Integrate. Or perish.

Read Part 1: Presentation - main results, the integrated newsroom will be the norm
Read Part 2: Multimedia, multi-skilled and integrated
Read Part 3: The future of the press
Read Part 4: Who participated in the survey?
Read Part 5: Comments by John Zogby and WEF President George Brock
Read Part 6: Threats to newspapers, areas of investment, more results

4) Who participated in the Newsroom Barometer?

Tue, 06 May 2008 08:56:03 +0000

The 2008 Newsroom Barometer gathered the answers of more than 700 editors and senior news executives from 120 countries, and was conducted online in March 2008.

This was a relatively big increase from the 435 senior news executives who answered the Newsroom Barometer last year.

The goal is to conduct a Newsroom Barometer every year, in order to compare and contrast the newspaper industry's trends over a longer period of time.

Here's a quick view of this year's respondents:

Job Title / others:

A near majority of the 713 respondents were editors-in-chief (320), and there were 120 managing editors. All respondents were senior news executives, there were neither journalists nor managers, as was the case in 2006.

Three quarters of respondents were male, underlining a still existent gender gap among top newspaper editorial positions. Circulation at 28% of the surveyed newspapers decreased last year, compared to 39% whose circulation increased. These numbers are both reassuring at a time of widespread doom and gloom reports, but they also reveal the transition print newspapers are going through.

Age:

There were more younger respondents (23.5% under 40) than in 2006, although senior editors (age above 50) still constituted 42% of all respondents. The split is representative of the age range of newsroom editors throughout the world.

Type of newspaper:

Compared to 2006, this year's newspapers were more representative of the industry as a whole, as two thirds of respondents came from regional or local papers, compared to a third from national or international titles.

Print circulation:

Many editors from smaller newspapers participated in this year's survey. Nearly half of respondents worked for papers with a print circulation of less than 50,000 copies. 19% of respondents worked for papers with a circulation superior to 200,000 copies.

Website traffic:

For 66% of respondents, their daily website traffic was below 200,000 unique visitors per day, which is also representative of the world press on the whole. 6% still didn't have a website, compared to 9% last year.

More about methodology

The Newsroom Barometer is a purely online survey through the Zogby website (www.zogby.com). The poll was accessible by invitation only and was conducted in eight languages (English, Spanish, French, German, Portuguese, Arabic, Russian and Japanese). To avoid answers from people who were not senior news executives, a tailored email was sent to editors-in-chief using the World Editors Forum database (www.worldeditorsforum.org), which counts 7,000 senior news executives' emails.

Read Part 1: Presentation - main results, the integrated newsroom will be the norm
Read Part 2: Multimedia, multi-skilled and integrated
Read Part 3: The future of the press
Read Part 4: Who participated in the survey?
Read Part 5: Comments by John Zogby and WEF President George Brock
Read Part 6: Threats to newspapers, areas of investment, more results

3) Newsroom Barometer: the future of the press

Tue, 06 May 2008 08:29:39 +0000

Although some of the main findings of this year's Newsroom Barometer relate to trends of newsroom integration, the survey's results also revealed some major trends as to the future of the press and news in general.

The fact that a large share of editors believe the most common platform for news in the future will be online - and not print - is significant. It is also significant that a majority of them think the majority of news will be free in the future. Even more interesting though is the fact that these numbers have quickly grown since last year.

Among the main findings:

- A plurality - 44% - believe online will be the most common platform for reading news in the future, compared with 41% last year. Thirty-one cited print (down from 35% last year), 12% mobile and 7% e-paper. The rest were unsure.
- A majority of editors - 56%- believe news in the future will be free, up from 48% from last year's survey. Only one third believe the news will remain paid for, while 11% were unsure.
- Two-thirds believe some editorial functions will be outsourced, despite frequent newsroom opposition to the practice.
- Perhaps one of the sadder findings of this year's Barometer, as only 45% of editors think journalism's quality will improve.

Looking 10 years into the future, what do you think will be the most common way of reading the news in your country?

Editors increasingly see online as the platform of reference for news in the future (44% compared to 40% last year), now significantly more so than print (30.6% compared to 35% last year).
Overall, 63% thought a type of digital platform will be the most common format, including 11.5% for mobile and 7% for e-paper, a relatively high figure combined (18.5%) for technologies that are still relatively uncommon. Results for mobile and e-paper stayed stable, indicating that news executives perceived few major evolutions in these technologies over the last year.

Do you think that the majority of news (print and online) will be free in the future?

A clear majority of respondents (56%) believe that the majority of news will be free in the future, a significant evolution, as only 47% answered 'Yes' last year. Only a third of respondents (33%) believe news will remain paid for. The future of the paid-for model - paid by users directly - is increasingly put into question, even by those who produce it.
Respondents from Western Europe, the cradle of the paid-for model, were less likely to believe in free news (48%). North American respondents were on par with the average, at 58.5%. The shift towards the free news model is more apparent when it comes to 'emerging' newspaper markets: in South America, Eastern Europe, Russia, the Middle East and Asia combined, 61% of respondents believed news would be free.

One might have expected Western European and North American editors to be more open to the free news model (after giving birth to freesheets and free online news), but many still think that users should pay for a quality editorial product.

Do you think it very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not all likely that in the future some traditional editorial functions will be outsourced?

Surprisingly, nearly two thirds of respondents (64%) believed that in the future traditional editorial functions will be outsourced, despite frequent newsroom resistance to such announcements. Granted, 44% of editors thought it be merely "somewhat likely," but this shows editors are conscious of - maybe not thrilled by - the growing trend of outsourcing.

One might have expected that North Americans and Europeans (West and East) particularly believe in the outsourcing trend (as the ones primarily concerned by outsourcing due to higher staff costs), but the results pointed in the opposite direction. On average, respondents from other regions of the world were more likely to believe in the outsourcing of editorial tasks in the future.

Over the next 10 years, do you think that the quality of journalism will:

A near majority thought that journalism's quality would improve (45% versus 27% who thought it would worsen). Yet while this is positive, it also means 65% of respondents didn't affirm that journalism would improve: the finding illustrates both the relative confidence and the uncertainties of this transitional period for the newspaper industry. Furthermore, this number is slightly down from last year, when 50% of respondents thought the quality of journalism would improve.

The hardships for the North American newspaper industry continue to be felt, as a mere 30% of respondents thought that journalism's quality would improve. Similarly, Russians and Eastern Europeans (34%) and West Europeans (45.5%) were skeptical.

Read Part 1: Presentation - main results, the integrated newsroom will be the norm
Read Part 2: Multimedia, multi-skilled and integrated
Read Part 3: The future of the press
Read Part 4: Who participated in the survey?
Read Part 5: Comments by John Zogby and WEF President George Brock
Read Part 6: Threats to newspapers, areas of investment, more results

2) Newsroom Barometer: Multimedia, multi-skilled and integrated

Tue, 06 May 2008 08:02:55 +0000

As newspapers worldwide weigh the decision to integrate their print and online newsrooms and grapple with whether their journalists should be fully multimedia capable or instead keep some specializations, the 2008 Newsroom Barometer asked a series of questions to gauge the current attitudes towards these issues.

Among the main findings:
- 86% believe integrated print and online newsrooms will become the norm in the short term - five years.
- 83% believe journalists will be expected to be able to produce content for all media within five years.
- 83% think newsroom design is an important factor in helping print and online collaboration.
- 53% claim to have an integrated newsroom.
- Among those who don't have an integrated newsroom, more than two thirds (69%) expect to have one within five years.

Do you agree or disagree that the "integrated newsroom" or "multimedia newsroom" will be the norm for newspapers in your country in 5 years?

An overwhelming majority of respondents, 86%, agreed that the integrated newsroom would be the norm for newspapers in the future. Moreover, nearly half "strongly agreed" that that would be the case. Less than 3% "strongly disagreed." Firstly, this shows that the model of the integrated newsroom, in which journalists are platform-agnostic, is deemed to be the most adapted to the current transition of newspapers. Secondly, it means editors believe these changes will occur very swiftly, if the integrated newsroom is to be "the norm" within five years.

The biggest proponents of the integrated newsroom came from North America, where 95% believe in the integrated newsroom. For other respondents, irrespective of their geographic location, the results were on par with average, although slightly lesser in Africa and Asia, at 74%.

Do you believe that within 5 years journalists in your country will be expected to know how to produce content for all platforms (print, video, audio, Web, mobile, etc.)?

As for the previous question - since the integrated newsroom and platform-agnostic journalism are tied together - an overwhelming majority of respondents, 83%, believes in the advent of multimedia journalists. Only 15% disagreed, an impressively low figure considering that most newspapers around the world still have single-platform journalists.
Again, North American respondents were the biggest believers in multimedia journalism, at 91% (62% 'strongly' and 29% 'somewhat'). This contrasts with respondents from Asia and Africa, who were less likely to think journalists would be platform-agnostic (70% and 73.5% respectively). Again, this is presumably because many of these newspapers are still more strongly focusing on their print product.

In your opinion, how important is the physical layout / design of your newsroom in determining how print and online journalists collaborate?

Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of respondents (83%) believed that newsroom design was at least 'somewhat' (39%) or 'very' (42%) important in determining collaboration among print and online journalists. At a time when some steps of the news process can be achieved with no need for physical proximity, editors still value the importance of a newsroom layout that favors staff interaction and helps make the editorial process more efficient. This also means that editors believe cultural change, through human interaction, is necessary to promote collaboration between print and online.

When do you expect your newspaper to have an integrated newsroom?

Newsroom integration, though not the norm yet, is among short-term priorities for newspapers and their editors. Of the 319 respondents who said they're newsroom wasn't integrated, a combined 69% expects to integrate within the next five years (39% within the next two, 30% within five). However, one in five respondents still isn't sure when - or perhaps whether - his or her newsroom will be integrated.

There is a correlation between the perceived urgency of newsroom integration and the state of a newspaper's print circulation. For newspapers whose circulation had decreased last year, a combined 80% of respondents expected to integrate within the next five years - including 48% in the next two. This starkly contrasts with newspapers whose circulation increased: 70% expected to integrate newsrooms in the next five years, including 41% in the next two. Editors consider newsroom integration to be more than a simple change in print-online collaboration. Newsroom integration can potentially be an editorial solution to struggles faced by newspapers in print.

Read Part 1: Presentation - main results, the integrated newsroom will be the norm
Read Part 2: Multimedia, multi-skilled and integrated
Read Part 3: The future of the press
Read Part 4: Who participated in the survey?
Read Part 5: Comments by John Zogby and WEF President George Brock
Read Part 6: Threats to newspapers, areas of investment, more results

1) Newsroom Barometer 2008: main results, the integrated newsroom will be the norm

Tue, 06 May 2008 07:30:38 +0000

Welcome to the 2008 edition of the Newsroom Barometer, an annual survey of editors around the world conducted by Zogby International and commissioned by the World Editors Forum and Reuters.

The global survey gathered the answers of more than 700 editors and senior news executives from 120 countries, and was conducted online in March 2008.

In last year's Newsroom Barometer, newspaper editors had revealed their overwhelming optimism about the future of their newspapers - an optimism that is still widespread today. In this edition, editors worldwide see neither their newsroom nor their journalists as being "print-only," having clearly accepted the multimedia revolution.

Do you agree or disagree that the "integrated newsroom" or "multimedia newsroom" will be the norm for newspapers in your country in 5 years?

Among the main results this year:

- 86% believe integrated print and online newsrooms will become the norm, and 83% believe journalists will be expected to be able to produce content for all media within five years.

- Two-thirds believe some editorial functions will be outsourced, despite frequent newsroom opposition to the practice.

- A plurality - 44% - believe on-line will be the most common platform for reading news in the future, compared with 41% last year. Thirty-one cited print (down from 35% last year), 12% mobile and 7% e-paper. The rest were unsure.

- 35% said training journalists in new media was the number one priority for investing in editorial quality. Recruiting more journalists was cited by 31%, up from 22% last year.

- A majority of editors - 56%- believe news in the future will be free, up from 48% from last year's survey. Only one-third believe the news will remain paid for, while 11% were unsure.

- Two-thirds of respondents believe the importance of opinion and analysis pages will increase.

- A majority - 58% - think the decline in young readership is the biggest threat for the future of newspapers.

"The survey shows that editors-in-chief are already multi-media minded and that they have the capacity to carry out the transition from print-only to print and online," said Bertrand Pecquerie, Director of the World Editors Forum.

The 2008 Newsroom Barometer also brought good news concerning editors' morale. Despite some (see Part 4) growing concerns as to the improvement of the quality of journalism in the future, an overwhelming majority of newspaper editors are still very optimistic about the future of their newspaper:

Read Part 1: Presentation - main results, the integrated newsroom will be the norm
Read Part 2: Multimedia, multi-skilled and integrated
Read Part 3: The future of the press
Read Part 4: Who participated in the survey?
Read Part 5: Comments by John Zogby and WEF President George Brock
Read Part 6: Threats to newspapers, areas of investment, more results

Or watch the video here.

For the full Newsroom Barometer results and commentary plus the complete, analytical guide to the monumental transformations taking place in the newspaper industry, please consult the print or PDF version of Trends in Newsrooms 2008 (http://www.trends-in-newsrooms.org/home.php), to be released May 2008. From free papers to e-papers, citizen journalism to social media and integrated newsrooms to Internet aggregators, it has everything you need to direct your paper towards a multimedia future.

About the World Editors Forum
The Paris-based World Editors Forum (http://www.worldeditorsforum.org ) is the organisation of the World Association of Newspapers that represents editors-in-chief and other senior news executives. WAN, the global organisation for the newspaper industry, represents 18,000 newspapers; its membership includes 77 national newspaper associations, newspapers and
newspaper executives in 102 countries, 12 news agencies and ten regional and world-wide press groups.

About Reuters
Thomson Reuters is the world's leading source of intelligent information for businesses and professionals. It combines industry expertise with innovative technology to deliver critical information to leading decision makers in the financial, legal, tax and accounting, scientific,
healthcare and media markets, powered by the world's most trusted news organization. With headquarters in New York and major operations in London and Eagan, Minnesota, Thomson Reuters employs more than 50,000 people in 93 countries. Thomson Reuters shares are listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: TRI); Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX: TRI); London Stock Exchange (LSE: TRIL); and Nasdaq (NASDAQ: TRIN). For more information, go to www.thomsonreuters.com.

About Zogby International
Zogby International is a public opinion, research, and business solutions firm with experience operating in 65 countries around the globe. Led by founder John Zogby, President and CEO, Zogby International is known as a leading company with a reputation for uncanny accuracy and reliability that specializes in telephone, Internet, and face-to-face survey research and
analysis for political, corporate, non-profit, and governmental clients. The firm is headquartered in Utica, New York, with offices in Washington D.C. and Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

Future of journalism series: Financial Times - Dan Bogler

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 06:59:15 +0000

The Editors Weblog is running a series of exclusive interviews about the future of journalism with top editors at leading newspapers around the world. Here is the latest installment with Dan Bogler, Managing Editor of the Financial Times in the UK.

Click here to view all interviews in this series. Other titles include The New York Times, the Guardian, Fairfax Media, the Hindustan Times, etc. (full list at the bottom of the interview).

Questions: "News, journalism, newspapers: same past, different futures?"

- How long do you think you will define your company as a newspaper company or a print company?

We see ourselves as a news organization and we're becoming much more agnostic about our distribution channels. We're becoming much more interested in creating relevant information for our readers and much less interested in how it gets to the readers. Pearson, the parent company, clearly is an education company with a print publishing arm and an information division, which includes the FT. At the FT level, we consider ourselves to be a financial news business more than a newspaper. Our mission is to be the gold standard for global business news in print and online - and in any other formats.

- At this year's World Economic Forum in Davos, a panel of futurists claimed that print newspapers wouldn't exist by 2014. To what extent do you agree with this?

Largely but not completely. 10 years from now - 2014 may be slightly too short a time frame - we will still have printed newspapers, because people like reading things in print. Newspapers, just like the book, are convenient to read in places you can't do with a computer; but my belief is that a lot of what will be printed will be analysis, comment, analysis and opinion. The actual news will be more or less online or in other more timely formats. In a way the FT will split in two, with FT.com for all the news that's breaking and some immediate reactions and opinion. The more considered analysis will be almost an Economist-type publication. Maybe it wouldn't have to be broadsheet anymore, it could be tabloid or even magazine format. To put it very crudely, you'd have all the news online, and you'd have 12 pages of Martin Wolf the next day in print, and all the editorials, columnists, features and more.

- In journalism's multi-centennial history, do you view the emergence of digital journalism as part of the continuity, or as a complete breakaway with previous forms of journalism?

There's one thing that's old and one thing that's new. What's old and part of the continuum is that traditional companies are going online. Our journalists are now fully integrated and write online and in print. I'm sure that in 2 years time they'll all be carrying video cameras. We've gone from zero videos website to over 100 per month in the last 18 months. That's part of the continuum: it's us doing the same thing in different distribution channels.

What's new is the blogosphere, citizen journalists and the idea that anyone - people who are not qualified journalists, either experts in a narrow field or just interested citizens - can start a blog or website and distribute it. For the FT, you would think it's negative in the sense that there's more news and opinion and more competitors. In fact, that's not really true, it almost enhances the position of leading media brands for several reasons. One is we are trusted, people believe the news they read with us. Secondly, we select and edit, which becomes an increasingly crucial function as there is more information out there. The more 'over-informed' people are, the more likely people who want to know what's actually going on will turn to a few sources that tell them what s actually important. That's what professional newspapers do really well.

- Do you believe in the increasingly active role of the user in the news process, and is it a threat or an opportunity for professional journalists?

I do believe in their increasingly active role of users: very often readers are more informed than us. If you look at an old format like the letters page in the newspaper, the amount of expertise that our readers have, who are often professionals in the City, is just incredible. They know more about it in certain aspects than our journalists. That's why we get CEOs, academics, lawyers, heads of accountancy firms and more writing in to us to say what's actually happening. They can do this online with comments or take part in Q&As, or print their views in the pages of the FT and FT.com. That sort of content is very helpful. We also have a function for any user to comment on the website's stories.

Is it a threat? Sure, to some extent. But as long as it's happening on our site or in the pages of our newspaper, it's been bundled, monitored, checked for quality and therefore is important. We're not going to turn into a place where we just repeat hundreds of readers' letters and have no journalists of our own. It's more of an opportunity for our journalists to become more informed and build contacts among readers. And it's amazing that all these readers are willing to give this information for free.

- Do you consider the Golden Age of investigative journalism is already past, or just beginning?

I don't know. That's a really hard one. I might say it's already past.

There's so much more information out there and it's so much harder for companies to hide information. Take the Northern Rock story, which was broken by BBC journalists, and there was a bank run as a result. It's harder to hide information. The idea that journalists have to do long-term, deep, undercover investigations where they reveal something months later - I don't think it works like that anymore. Journalists still have scoops and still break important stories, but it tends to be in a much shorter time frame. It tends to be a single development that they're breaking rather than a long series of connections.

But frankly, newspapers and media organizations are under pressure. It's hard for us to send a journalist or a group of journalists off three months investigating something - and if nothing works that's a shame but nevermind. We don't have resources to let people go off and do that for such a long time. I think The Golden Age of journalists working undercover, developing sources and breaking big scandals is less likely; but revealing news that people don't want out there, on a short term basis, uncovering a scandal and having it come to light, that's more likely. As soon as a tiny thing breaks now, it gets distributed so quickly that it's hard to see a journalist working undercover for a long time and gradually piecing something together without having it go public much earlier in the process.

Stay tuned for more interviews in our series. Among the other titles that have been asked to participate in these interviews are:

- The New York Times - Jonathan Landman (US)
- Financial Times - Dan Bogler (UK)
- Guardian (UK)
- Washington Post - Jim Brady (US)
- Globe & Mail - Ed Greenspon (Canada)
- The Times (UK)
- The Economist (UK)
- Gazeta Wyborcza - Jaroslaw Kurski (Poland)
- Le Monde (France)
- Die Welt (Germany)
- The Hindustan Times - Pankaj Paul (India)
- Asahi Shimbun (Japan)
- JoongAng Ilbo (South Korea)
- The Age / Fairfax - Mike van Niekerk (Australia)
- The Nation - Pana Janviroj (Thailand)
- Punch (Nigeria)
- El Tiempo (Colombia)
- Clarin (Argentina)
- Gulf News - Abdul Hamid Ahmad (UAE)

Future of journalism series: Jonathan Landman - The New York Times

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:52:48 +0000

The Editors Weblog is running a series of exclusive interviews about the future of journalism with top editors at leading newspapers around the world. Here is the latest installment with Jonathan Landman, deputy Managing Editor of The New York Times in the US.

The list of upcoming interviews will be updated as they are published (click here to view all interviews in this series). Among the other titles that have been asked to participate in these interviews are:

- The New York Times - Jonathan Landman (US)
- Financial Times (UK)
- Guardian (UK)
- Washington Post - Jim Brady (US)
- Globe & Mail - Ed Greenspon (Canada)
- The Times (UK)
- The Economist (UK)
- Gazeta Wyborcza - Jaroslaw Kurski (Poland)
- Le Monde (France)
- Die Welt (Germany)
- The Hindustan Times - Pankaj Paul (India)
- Asahi Shimbun (Japan)
- JoongAng Ilbo (South Korea)
- The Age / Fairfax - Mike van Niekerk (Australia)
- The Nation - Pana Janviroj (Thailand)
- Punch (Nigeria)
- El Tiempo (Colombia)
- Clarin (Argentina)
- Gulf News - Abdul Hamid Ahmad (UAE)

Questions: "News, journalism, newspapers: same past, different futures?"

1 -      How long do you think you will define your company as a newspaper company or a print company?

We're a news and information company, not just a newspaper or print company. We own newspapers, obviously, and they remain extremely important. But we also own Web sites, not only www.nytimes.com but also www.about.com and www.boston.com and others. The Web sites are growing smartly. They are also contributing a steadily increasing share of the company's revenue -- 11 percent at the end of 2007.

2 -    At this year's World Economic Forum in Davos, a panel of futurists claimed that print newspapers wouldn't exist by 2014. To what extent do you agree with this?

I doubt it. Big U.S. papers like The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal still have a lot of loyal readers who like the feel and experience of a newspaper. I imagine newspapers will survive until the perfect electronic substitute comes along and combines the portability and readability of a newspaper with the connectivity and multimedia capabilities of the Web.
When will that happen? Place your bets.

3 -     In journalism's multi-centennial history, do you view the emergence of digital journalism as part of the continuity, or as a complete breakaway with previous forms of journalism?

Both. Digital journalism combines brand-new things with time-tested old ones. The most pronounced change is in the realm of reader interaction -- technology has made it possible for journalists, outside experts and other readers to talk to each other, to collaborate on news-gathering and analysis, to fact-check and to distribute journalism in new ways. It has pulled the newspaper package apart, allowing people to acquire and consume their journalism one piece at a time or to customize it to fit their needs. It has altered the journalist's relationship with sources and introduced new visual forms like the interactive graphic. It has picked up the journalistic pace.

Those are big changes. Still, the things that haven't changed are just as important as the things that have. Good journalists must still know their subjects. Ambitious and resourceful reporting are as essential to good news video as they are to good news writing. News judgment -- shorthand for a complicated, unscientific and very human professional assessment of what's most important, interesting, surprising, funny, educational and otherwise worth knowing about -- retains its value.

4 -       Do you believe in the increasingly active role of the user in the news process, and is it a threat or an opportunity for professional journalists?

An opportunity. See above. For us, figuring out how to mobilize our sophisticated, curious and well-informed audience in constructive ways is both a challenge and a high priority.

5 -       Do you consider the Golden Age of investigative journalism is already past, or just beginning?

There's no doubt that financial pressures have driven many newspapers to cut back on investigative work. But that is distinctly not the case at The New York Times. Here are (also here, here, here and here) just a few important examples to illustrate the point.

The decline of investigative reporting at newspapers can't be a plus for democracy. On the other hand, the Internet has made public records and other documents much easier to find, expose and examine. It has made it easier for fine independent journalists like Joshua Micah Marshall to find an audience for excellent investigative work that would otherwise not gain wide public attention. And it has made it easier for whistleblowers and others to find and reinforce each other.

In those ways it has expanded opportunities for professional journalists to work with other people to expose wrongdoing and explore important issues. I'd say this form of collaborative investigative journalism is still young and has much potential.

6 -       Can journalism survive newspapers? (And maybe can newspapers survive journalism?)

Commentators and prognosticators have been predicting the imminent demise of newspapers for at least 15 years. A famous example: In 1993 in Wired Magazine, Michael Crichton wrote: "To my mind, it is likely that what we now understand as the mass media will be gone within 10 years. Vanished, without a trace." The New York Times, he said, will be the GM or IBM of the 1990's, "the next great American institution to find itself obsolete and outdated while obstinately refusing to change."

Nine years later, the media critic of Slate, Jack Shafer, noted that Crichton had been wrong and took a stab at explaining why. His concluding paragraphs:
"As the wise man once said, if you're going to make predictions, make a lot of them. Folks will forget your misses and remember your hits. In that spirit, Crichton writes, 'Sooner or later a lot of people are going to say, "You know what? An editor is worth the money. Because time is money, and my time is wasted combing through this junk. I'll pay someone to do it." And it'll happen.'

"To my ears, though, that still sounds like the New York Times."

Stay tuned for more in our interview series: the next installment will feature Financial Times' Managing Editor Dan Bogler.

Part two: The heartbreak of U.S. layoffs, told through graphics

Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:09:27 +0000

Last week we shared the emotional photo documentary from Martin Gee of the San Jose Mercury News. Visual journalism is a powerful tool for conveying the impact and scope of the downsizing that has been happening in U.S. newsrooms.

From photos to graphics map mashups

Erica Smith is a journalist and multimedia designer for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and has been teaching herself Web programming skills as she has transitioned into her new newsroom roles. One of her projects has been a Google map mashup where she plots U.S. newspaper layoff announcements.

She documents at her Paper cuts blog that more than 1,711 jobs have been slashed in 2008 and more than 2,185 in 2007.

There is more than just the map here; the data she collects is richly annotated as includes monthly summaries that list the the paper, the number of positions lost and the link to the new story where the job cuts were announced.

For example her tally from November 2007:

NOVEMBER: 305
New York Times: 12
Kansas City Star: 24
USA Today: 43
The Ledger: 18
Reno-Gazette Journal: 10
Herald-Argus: 30 to 40
Cincinnati Post: 53
Cincinnati Enquirer: 30
Daily Southtown: 31
Spokesman-Review: 40
The Sarasota Herald-Tribune: 14

The different colored balloons on the interactive map indicate how many positions were eliminated with red being the highest number - over 100 in one action.

The heartbreak of newsroom layoffs, told through pictures

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:51:51 +0000

Sometimes the hardest pictures a newspaper journalist makes are the ones they take of themselves during hard times. San Jose Mercury News designer Martin Gee has posted a photo documentary of the effects of several rounds of layoffs and buyouts in his California newsroom. You can feel his heart breaking in captions as he recalls former colleagues and the spirit they brought to the newsroom.

Gee writes:

The last round of layoffs and buyouts really hurt me. i mean, each one does but this one especially. This place feels like a morgue. an abusive relationship. remnants everywhere. Empty cubicles. Empty chairs. Abandoned office equipment. goodbye emails. Besides looking for a new job and building a massive assemblage, this is a way for me to deal. There will be more photos...

On a photo of an empty nameplate holder Gee writes: "Rich Ramirez committed suicide during the last round of layoffs at the Mercury News."

Part 2: 5 key lessons from Generation Y to newspapers

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:37:28 +0000

Here's Part 2 of a piece submitted to us by Chris McGillion, former Editorial Page Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald. He currently coordinates the journalism program at Charles Sturt University in Australia.

In the following, he outlines five key points presented by some of his journalism students to top execs in the newspaper industry, who it seems would be better off heeding their advice :

Also read Part 1: The value of the journalism graduate.

Last year the Pacific Area Newspaper Publishers' Association (Panpa) invited five of my journalism students from Charles Sturt University (CSU) to give a keynote presentation at its annual conference in Melbourne on what their generation wanted from the newspaper of the future.

Newspaper decision-makers have access to the latest statistics and trends in audience research as a matter of course. But they rarely if at all have five representatives of Generation Y - the readership base of the future - holding court without interruption for ninety minutes on what they want in a newspaper and why.

My students made five major points. First, while not discounting a continuing (if diminishing) market for hard-copy newspapers, they argued that the "newspaper' of the future would have to be web-based in order to attract sustained patronage from their generation.

This is consistent with the results of annual surveys of first year communication students at CSU (200 in all of whom almost half are journalism students). These results show an increasing trend toward accessing news online (34.7% did so at least weekly in 2007) and decreasing hardcopy newspaper consumption (down to 41% at least weekly in 2007).

Further evidence of our students' attachment to web-based technology is daily usage of Hotmail accounts (60.7% in 2007), the Google search engine (72.7%), and social networking websites such as MySpace (33.3%).

Second, the student presenters argued that future web-based news sites would have to play a "gateway" role rather than the traditional "gatekeeper" role. Put simply, young people these days don't like to be told what news is or what they should consider important: personalised, tailored content will be the hallmark of Generation Y's media consumption.

Another side of this cultural shift is that Generation Y doesn't like to be told what to buy: they will certainly follow trends and adopt brands but both must be - or must appear to be - peer-recommended (and remember we are dealing with people who may have up to 400 "friends" on their social networking websites).

This shift has important implications for advertisers and thus the way media organizations fund their operations.

Third, the most popular news sites will allow for a degree of interactivity. Young people don't only want to know what's happening in the outside world: they also want the outside world to know what they think about what's happening and even, increasingly, to be the ones defining and providing whatever it is that is happening.

Fourth, reputable media organisations remain highly valued. This seems to be a function of information overload and the consequent need to filter what's "out there" together with attitudes ingrained from parents (and reinforced by teachers and public figures) about reliability and quality.

Fifth, and most important, Generation Y will change the economics of the newspaper industry. In an internet age, young people do not see the need to pay for information. But nor do they have the same concerns about privacy as their parents and grandparents. Their's, after all, is the "Big Brother' generation whose private lives have become the stuff of public consumption.

The students at Panpa then unveiled their idea for a proto-type web-based "newspaper". It was designed as a gateway to the internet: it allowed readers to pre-sort the news they received, to access email and other social networking sites, and to provide their own "news" stories, comment and photos. It also offered free mobile phones and/or phone accounts in exchange for personal information which the site host then sold on to advertisers.

I had worked closely with the students for three months on this presentation. Sitting in the audience of 300 or so (mostly middle-aged male) editors and publishers, I heard enough grumbling about what the students were saying to fear that the presentation was a PR disaster for the journalism course I run. "Free newspapers and mobile phones!" I heard one editor complain under his breath. "What else do these people want?"

Then, one by one, three international experts on the subject of trends in the newspaper industry - representing IFRA, INMA, and News Digital Media - were invited to respond to the students' presentation. Their message was clear, simple - and reassuring for me at least: in no uncertain terms they each told the audience that they ignored what my students told them to their peril.

Chris McGillion coordinates the journalism program at Charles Sturt University, Australia (cmcgillion@csu.edu.au).

If you would like to contribute your views and insight, please feel free to visit our 'Contact Us' page and send us suggestions for stories or articles.

Stay tuned, as we will shortly be resuming our 'Future of Journalism' series with interviews from editors at The New York Times and the Financial Times.

Part 1: The value of the journalism graduate

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:05:16 +0000

Here's a piece submitted to us by Chris McGillion, former Editorial Page Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald. He currently coordinates the journalism program at Charles Sturt University in Australia. In the following two-part essay, he reviews the pros and cons of journalism school programs today, and how editors, teachers and journalists can benefit from them :

Over the years that I've spent teaching journalism more than practicing it, I've had to take a keen interest in complaints from editors about the graduates of university-based journalism courses. I detect that some of these complaints reflect an antipathy towards university degrees by people who have risen to the top of their profession without one and I suspect that some complaints are nothing more than attempts to sheet the blame for bad appointments home to someone other than the hirer.

But other complaints are not so easily dismissed. Among these are the charge that university courses over intellectualize what is basically a craft, that curriculums more often reflect the interests of academics rather than the industry, and that journalism graduates have been taught how to communicate rather than what to communicate - that they lack, in other words, the kind of knowledge that is needed to get a handle on a round.

All of this is true but it is not equally true of all journalism courses. Many are little more than media studies courses parading as journalism courses. These produce graduates who (think they) know how journalism should be done rather than how it is done and for this reason often develop a disdain for the profession they are trying to enter.

Many universities delude themselves (and their students) into believing they are the breeding ground for senior and/or specialist journalists (investigative reporters, feature writers, even columnists) when in fact the industry is most often looking to recruit junior reporters who can put their hand to any story they are given.

Many journalism courses encourage an academic study of politics and history when editors want simply a solid grounding in general knowledge (dates, events, personalities) in order to be able to contextualize stories for their readers.

And many universities compound each of these problems by requiring staff to undertake PhDs and "peer-reviewed" research in order to get promotion with the result that good teacher-practitioners develop into academics far removed from the cut-and-thrust media world they are supposed to know about.

I would be the first to argue that the best place to learn journalism is on the job. Ironically that is how I and most of the journalism teaching staff I work with came to know what we know. But I would also argue that a journalism course, properly structured and taught, is the best way to prepare most people to learn quickly on the job.

One reason is that the best journalism courses involve students unlearning inappropriate skills - not just acquiring appropriate ones. Take writing for example: most students enter university understanding writing to be something you do for a small audience of people who know more about the subject than you do and who are paid to read whatever you write. I'm referring to teachers.

Getting students to understand - as a matter of reflex - that journalism involves writing for a broad range of people who expect the reporter to tell them something they didn't know and who won't read it unless the writing itself provides good reason means combating 13 years of schooling. Is the industry really prepared to take on that task?

Another reason is that a journalism student has generally had three years to think about whether or not they actually want to pursue a career in journalism. Whenever I've asked editors if retention rates are higher among journalism graduates than other graduates (or non-graduates), I'm met with a stony silence. No one seems to have done the research and yet the answer - which I strongly suspect is in the affirmative - would seem to me crucial in determining the investment of time and effort an editor makes in a recruit.

The other challenge I constantly put to editors is to work with those journalism courses they know produce the better graduates in order to help produce the best ones. Too few respond positively with internship placements, offers of industry-funded workshops, training manuals, etc. But until the firewalls between academia and the media are broken down in this way, editors must bear some responsibility for the graduates they get.

Source: written by Chris McGillion, who coordinates the journalism program at Charles Sturt University in Australia. Before taking up his teaching position, he was the Editorial Page Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald.