“Newsrooms have shrunk by 25% in three years.” —Project for Excellence in Journalism, “State of the News Media 2010”
“A large majority (75%) of editors said their story counts . . . had either increased or remained the same during the past three years.” —PEJ, “The Changing Newsroom,” July 2008
“We’re all wire service reporters now.” —Theresa Agovino, Crain’s New York Business, at a conference of women real estate writers, December 2009
“NBC’s chief White House correspondent, Chuck Todd, in a typical day does eight to sixteen standup interviews for NBC or MSNBC; hosts his new show, ‘The Daily Rundown’; appears regularly on ‘Today’ and ‘Morning Joe’; tweets or posts on his Facebook page eight to ten times; and composes three to five blog posts. ‘We’re all wire-service reporters now,’ he says.” —Ken Auletta, The New Yorker, “Non-Stop News,” January 25, 2010
“Everyone’s running around like rats.” —a Wall Street Journal editor, June 21
“The scoop has never had more significance to our professional users, for whom a few minutes, or even seconds, are a crucial advantage whose value has increased exponentially.” —Robert Thomson, managing editor, The Wall Street Journal, in a memo to staff headlined “A Matter of Urgency,” sent May 19
“Everybody has to be on the air every day. That makes a big difference.” —Greg Guise, digital correspondent (cameraman), WUSA9-TV, Washington, D.C., June 2
“Turning and turning in the widening gyre / The falcon cannot hear the falconer.” —William Butler Yeats, “The Second Coming”
“When asked to cite the newsroom loss that hurt the most, one editor answered simply, ‘The concept of who and what we are.’ ” —PEJ, “The Changing Newsroom”
These are challenging times in the news business. We get that, even up here in the CJR commune. I am not here to argue against experimentation, keeping up with the Huffingtons, Mike Allen-ism, or any of that. I am not anti-speed. Speed is good. It’s why there’s a news business in the first place. It’s why the man ran the twenty-six miles from the battle of Marathon. It’s why journalism starts with jour, although now it should probably be called heure-nalism. So rest assured, your writer is pro-scoop, pro-working hard, pro-update, pro-competing-for-scraps-of-news-like-a-pack-of-wild-animals, pro-video, etc., type, type, pant, pant—phew! Sorry, for a second I thought I was on DealBook.
I’m also for quantity when it comes to news—more is more, I say. Even though our readers are all supposed to be super busy, so in theory it makes no sense—at all—to be increasing the volume of random items for these harried people to sort through. You’d think we’d be decreasing our volume, and making sure each thing offered to readers is really good. But, like I said, I’ve no problem with volume, in theory.
Also, I should go on record as being pro-productivity. I’m for squeezing every last ounce from every last lazy, lucky-to-have-a-job reporter. I’m an editor, too, you know. Reporters and their “but we need time to look into stuff”—wah, wah. Don’t they know we’re in deep kimchi? “We are in a tough, take-no-prisoners, leave-no-terminal-unturned competition around the world,” as Robert Thomson reminds his staff in the memo cited above. Bleedin’ crisis, this is.
But let’s think about this for a second. Stop. Think. We’re doing more with less, the numbers don’t lie. Fewer reporters and editors. More copy. What’s the bottom line? “The bottom line culturally is this,” PEJ said in that 2008 report:
In today’s newspapers, stories tend to be gathered faster and under greater pressure by a smaller, less experienced staff of reporters, then are passed more quickly through fewer, less experienced, editing hands on their way to publication.
Not much to add, other than that, after 3+ years of ethnographic work in Philadelphia. you basically just summarized one of my main findings. This analysis is entirely correct and, as much as (though not more than) "news as a conversation" or "collapsing business models," really gets at the heart of the thrust of journalistic transformation.
#1 Posted by C.W. Anderson, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 03:03 PM
"When we pick up our newspaper at breakfast, we expect--we even demand--that it bring us momentous events since the night before. We turn on the car radio as we drive to work and expect "news" to have occurred since the morning newspaper went to press."
Daniel J. Boorstin, "Introduction," The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America" (1961)
An explanation of the philosophy behind "the wheel." A book whose critique is more relevant every year.
#2 Posted by Robert S. Boynton, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 03:40 PM
Dean! I was reading this story in print on the subway, and I got so engrossed that I missed my subway stop. Really sharp stuff. Thank you!
#3 Posted by Katia Bachko, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 03:57 PM
Good piece. (And I know we probably shouldn't laugh, but headlines like 'Sheriff plans no car purchases in 2011' are horribly funny).
#4 Posted by Jonathan Hudston, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 04:00 PM
You know what else 'The Wheel' can do? Take bitter, change-averse former employees like you away. Roll along now...
#5 Posted by Chris, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 07:51 PM
You know, if you had actually READ the Kokomo story. You would have learned the CONTEXT of the 'Sheriff plans no car purchas' headline. Turns out the department normally buys half a dozen cars each year. Not doing so in 2011 will save them $185,000.
But I guess since you're so oppressed by 'the hamster wheel,' you couldn't possibly have taken the time to read that.
#6 Posted by Chris, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 07:59 PM
I got a hearty bellylaugh over the statement that story quality in today's U.S. newspapers is "better than ever" -- this claim despite immense cutbacks and the man-overboard approach to editorial staffing.
Selling more 1A ads isn't my idea of moving forward. And seeing copy that incorrectly substitutes "council" for "counsel" in a daily newspaper story punctuates the point that either (a) nobody of substance is reading the drivel that passes for current print content or (b) no time is being taken to read/edit stories written by neophytes. It's not their fault they suck so bad. It's a lack of commitment to quality by the owners and bosses.
#7 Posted by Hawke Fracassa, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 08:08 PM
Dean, nice piece, and a much-needed analysis of what some newsrooms seem to be doing unthinkingly. Change is good - in fact, change is necessary - but it needs to be examined first.
One of my main issues with the speed mantra, as I note on my blog (structureofnews.wordpress.com), is that it's not any more profitable doing it that way; so that's not really pushing us towards sustainable models. We need to more fundamentally rethink the process of journalism and what we produce if we're going to square the circle of revenues and costs.
#8 Posted by Reg Chua, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 06:45 AM
Research in the UK (from a few years ago) has found similar problems: http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/jomec/resources/QualityIndependenceofBritishJournalism.pdf
#9 Posted by Jamie, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 06:58 AM
I'm glad I retired from the newspaper business 12 years ago. Much of what has been lost to the Hamster Wheel can be summed up this way: "I'd rather get it right than get it first."
#10 Posted by Tom Barry, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 11:15 AM
Why would you call that anonymous Wall Street Journal reporter a whiner, even while supporting his point? You must be a hell of a guy to work for.
#11 Posted by Mark, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 12:30 PM
The growing ability of PR folks to control the news agenda is alarming. They will do whatever reporters let them do. Their ability to create and parcel out mini-scoops over the course of a news cycle gives them huge leverage.
This was a very important piece, Dean.
#12 Posted by BillinBoston, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 12:30 PM
A good story marred by an awful chart. Why doesn't the vertical axis of your chart start at zero?
It would appear that you're trying to magnify the impact of the already-impressive increase in the number of stories. I expect better from the CJR.
#13 Posted by Barry Parr, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 01:39 PM
This is one of the best media stories of the decade. A cautionary tale. A dire warning.
Where's the book, now?
#14 Posted by jane friday, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 01:44 PM
Mark, man you nailed it. Dang! That Starkman is like an imperial CEO crossed with a Foxconn line boss mixed in with a little Pol Pot. He makes this guy look like a creampuff.
Hey, Dean--can I have that potty break now? Please?
Humbly,
Ryan
#15 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 04:55 PM
A lot of people I know think corporate conglomerates buy and operate news companies to "make" news the same way some of their other companies make vacuum cleaners or machine guns.
#16 Posted by bbuc, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 05:08 PM
"I would have written you a shorter letter, but I didn't have the time..." - Mark Twain.
#17 Posted by indianj, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 05:44 PM
By all means, we needed another lament as to why things are different (therefore, worse) than they used to be.
Barry Parr is right about the chart. Better still, give us the actual data in a table.
#18 Posted by Wendell Cochran, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 06:49 PM
brilliant piece. unfortunately I had to stop in the middle of it this morning to file three blog posts. finally got back to it at 1 am this morning. big wheels keep on turnin'....
dt
#19 Posted by dan tynan, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 01:04 AM
Great article. Most importantly, "the wheel" entirely devalues the profession of journalism. It allows business-siders to support their misconceived "anyone can write" agenda that allows them to let go of staffers in favor of "entrepreneurial bloggers" who churn out the various festivus pieces, put out videos of guys cutting tile as a way to demonstrate changes in movie theater economics, or simply rewrite press releases or reports from other news groups. Or, better yet, they can simply fill their sites with slide shows that can get them 10 page views instead of 1 and charge those ad rates.
Perhaps there is opportunity in backlash to re-invigorate the idea of professional journalists and editors as "curators" of the news. Today's sites are quickly becoming places where Rembrandts hang alongside Keans since you may as well fill up the wall space with "art" so why not have The Night Watch surrounded by paintings of kids with big eyes. Could there be room for allowing news reporters and editors to make choices, investigate, and analyze? And do it in a new model? Please!
#20 Posted by sf, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 10:02 AM
"You know, if you had actually READ the Kokomo story. You would have learned the CONTEXT of the 'Sheriff plans no car purchas' headline. Turns out the department normally buys half a dozen cars each year. Not doing so in 2011 will save them $185,000."
Then that should have been in the headline, no?
#21 Posted by Big bad Dave, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 02:06 PM
So... given that you conclude apps are the way: where's my Kindle CJR? I'm waiting...
#22 Posted by Anns, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 10:45 PM
Re sheriff-cars sttory. A good reporter would asked if buying fewer cars in 2011 means having to buy more cars in 2012? Would there be any real saving?
Significant journalism seldom results from getting out a bulletin or flash 30 seconds ahead of the opposition.
Years ago when there were three major U.S. wire services, AP (and the others, I presume) pit out daily playbacks., i.e., "Congrats to Paris buro, Bulletin on Grenoble plane crash was 45 seconds ahead of opposition.
The CNN came along position with its endless switching back and forth. "And now we switch to the State Department. What's going on other there John?" "Well, the lights are on in the press room. We might have a statement soon." "Thanks John, now let's go the Pentagon. Bill, are you still hiding under the desk? Has the secretary arrived yet?'' Etc, etc. Now it's even worse on the internet.
I'll all in favor of getting the story fast, but first get it right. There's way too much fluff. "Our blonde dashed up to the crime scene a minute before their redhead!!!!"
#23 Posted by barney kirchhoff, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 09:38 AM
Anns, it's coming, it's coming. We're on the case. iPad and all that, too
#24 Posted by Mike Hoyt, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 03:32 PM
Thanks for this great piece. The only point missing is that a lot of the hamsters aren't really hamsters — they're gerbils, or maybe even fish or elephants. Just as there's more information but much of it isn't news, there are more creatures typing, typing, typing . . . but many of them aren't journalists.
#25 Posted by Joanie Warner, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 04:10 PM
Press release "journalism" distorts the economics of the news business. Reporters end up more beholden to their sources than their employers. This leads reporters to undercut the ad sales team. Many of the press releases that are reported as news belong as ads. The business model is failing because news outlets give away for free space that should be sold as advertising.
The wheel is just a symptom of reporters dependance on sources, and lack of integrity towards the business which must serve the readership and the shareholders.
And press release journalism really needs to include a link to the press release.
#26 Posted by Timothywmurray, CJR on Sun 19 Sep 2010 at 09:21 AM
Dean,
Amazing piece. It's exactly what I have observed as an interloper on the journalism beat, working on the edges, doing contra- gerbil wheel work. I talk to a lot of journalists, both as a SME who is covered and quoted and one who places work as a freelancer. Everyone "loves" what I do but, of course, no one pays me much for it. Fortunately, I get so much more out of it than money.
http://retheauditors.com
fm
#27 Posted by Francine McKenna, CJR on Sun 26 Sep 2010 at 01:37 PM
Kudos, Dean.
Ryan! Get back to work!
#28 Posted by edward ericson jr., CJR on Sun 26 Sep 2010 at 08:40 PM
[...] The CJR clearly thinks that watching Seinfeld is instruction enough in how to erect a Festivus Pole... [...]
http://www.berfrois.com/
#29 Posted by Berfrois, CJR on Fri 1 Oct 2010 at 08:09 AM
Oh the shallowness! As I type this, the home page of the NY Times has election coverage pretending that Harry Reid and Sharron Angle are as bad as each other, so there's nothing for voters to do but throw up their hands.
("In Nevada, It’s Hold Nose and Cast Vote By DAN BARRY and MICHAEL COOPER")
This article barely mentions what the candidates stand for, or what their policies are. Horse race, hamster race!
#30 Posted by Papal Gaybash, CJR on Sat 30 Oct 2010 at 12:16 AM
This is about resource allocation. Bass has a degree from the Stanford Graduate School of Business. And of course you need to be on the news. Consider that even the science of measuring Web traffic is still in its infancy. And getting from clicks to dollars involves another set of calculations. you basically just summarized one of my main findings. Turns out the department normally buys half a dozen cars each year. They will do whatever reporters let them do. He makes this guy look like a creampuff. unfortunately I had to stop in the middle of it this morning to file three blog posts. We might have a statement soon. Reporters end up more beholden to their sources than their employers. This leads reporters to undercut the ad sales team. Many of the press releases that are reported as news belong as ads. The business model is failing because news outlets give away for free space that should be sold as advertising. Do not resubmit during this time or your comment will post multiple times.This was my Apeira Designs
#31 Posted by Apeira Designs, CJR on Thu 22 Sep 2011 at 12:47 PM
The environment is always the brain washer,it's up to the individual to sort out all the truths and half truths in this world of unlimited access media circus. and everyone has a opinion,it's just so happens that bad news is usually what sells.and when it comes to the media,very little emphasis is placed on quote "good news" cause it's boring,and most readers/ buyers/ad readers prefer sensationalism to true journalism no matter how slanted it may be.That why we have to carefully read and use our conscious to sort out what is probable horseshit from half truths to maybe some article's that contain value.
#32 Posted by Johnny MacKendry, CJR on Tue 3 Apr 2012 at 10:57 AM
"strategies focus on a curated news experience and deep reader engagement and will involve a whole new series of metrics."
Here's one easy to understand metric: people stopping a media figure in the streets to thank him for the excellent piece.
How about that?
"Where? When? How? Who's that" you ask?
Right here:
http://grist.org/climate-energy/meeting-the-bruce-springsteens-of-climate-communication/
#33 Posted by Francois T, CJR on Mon 17 Sep 2012 at 12:53 PM