I've been following the writers' strike in Hollywood -- a protest about getting compensated for new media revenues from the media companies. Then, Ken Walsh, political correspondent of U.S. News & World Report, talked to my newswriting students about how the constant call of the Web site has mitigated his day. The expectations of his superiors have completely changed for Walsh, who likened his daily workload to his wire service days of continuous deadlines and content for content's sake. Walsh did not mention whether he was compensated for the additional work in some manner, but my guess is no.
Essentially these media companies are developing alternative content vehicles using existing production models of expense -- at least from a content producer standpoint. Is this fair, or, rather, the normal adaption exercise any dynamic media employee must go through as the nature of the job evolves?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I do not agree with the idea of making people in the media take on additional tasks to keep up with the fast-paced developments of new technology. In my experience working for the Wisconsin State Journal, I can attest to the fact that having to take care of Web site posting in addition to the night's regular tasks has been the source of greatest stress for my editors. Although, I understand that certain companies most likely do not have the financial means to employ new workers specifically for new technological developments, this is something these firms need to figure out very soon. I do realize, however, that this transition process is probably the norm when new avenues open up in media.
Where I see the most danger is in the idea of "content for content's sake." This reminds me of the 24-hr news cycle, where quantity is stressed over quality. In this race to dish out constant content in innovative and creative ways, I feel that the quality of news will decrease. In addition, the extra stress and the decreased time for work (which is lost to figuring out how to work these new forms of media) doesn't allow the media workers to produce their best work. In an industry where deadlines are commonplace, the fact that reporters are begging for a little relief speaks volumes.
-Elli
Having worked this past summer as a intern in the marketing department of a medium-sized (but rapidly growing) media company, I was exposed to this particular issue on a near-daily basis.
Internet Broadcasting (my former employer) is a full-service Internet company headquartered in Saint Paul, Minn., that specializes in producing Web sites for local TV stations in hundreds of markets across the country.
Employees – and the content department, in particular – underwent a dramatic shift immediately after the 35W Bridge in Minneapolis collapsed this summer. The content department was called to the horrific scene and forced to become a coherent team of investigative journalists. This was a huge transition from their usual jobs of minimally rewriting stories from the AP wire and posting them to IB’s Web sites.
Fortunately, the content team was able to muddle through the tragedy and the result, in my opinion, was the best journalistic content I came across throughout my entire summer at IB.
While I don’t think content producers are necessarily being exploited by the evolution of technology, I do think they deserve some sort of compensation for the additional time and energy required of them by new media technologies.
New media will continue to be a gray area in terms of overarching standards for the journalism industry precisely because it is – and always will be - NEW media.
However, there’s a fine line between good journalists and great journalists, and if a content producer can keep up with the ever-changing new media landscape, then in the end, they’re the great journalists who are undoubtedly worth the additional compensation.
-Emily M.
I agree with Elli on this topic. I believe that the drive to produce headline news constantly, a result of the 24-hour news cycle, is affecting the expectations that media professionals have for their employees. While it is important that the media companies keep up with the changing use of alternative content vehicles, it is unfair for them to overload their employees with extra work, especially without compensating them. As of now, this is probably the normal adaptation that they have to go through as part of the job evolution, but media companies need to make an effort to find a solution to this issue before it becomes a major problem for them.
-Natalie H.
I think this kind of relates to our reading that talked about media production and how production is designed in a cookie-cutter way in order to reduce risk and reduce costs.
By making their employees do additional work in new media on top of their traditional assignments, companies arn't having to hire new people, payout more money (unless its for unsalaried workers who could maybe claim overtime?), and havn't had to shift their production "assembly line" by much. In this case, risk means financial risk they take. Will new media create revenue that will pay for the extra money they're putting out? Until relatively recently, media companies weren't too sure about how they'd fit into this new media scheme. Now, though, I think it's pretty common knowledge that the internet is an essential part to almost any media enterprise.
As new media continues to grow, I think these companies will have to do one of two things: change thier production model by hiring extra people to do only new media or pay people more for the work they do-- or find new ways to make money, the quality of their media produced will go down as employees struggle to produce quality work with so many time contraints.
I don't agree with the editorial decisions of the newspaper online branches to do a 24/7 deadline, just to keep up with the real-time trend of the online world. As other comments have mentioned, there is the raising the level of fatigue among journalists and the resulting quality degradation of the news. Moreover, such focus is totally wrong simply because in the aspects of being real-time, one online newspaper agency won't be a match against the vast army of bloggers who are distributing news information around the clock. In such a situation, what the online branches should notice is their own strength in producing news articles that are reference-worthy. The "long-tail theory" isn't only good for the virtual warehouse argument, but also for news as well. If a news article has in-depth information and a good idea that is reference-worthy, its discursive influence doesn't have to rely on simple real-time speed. It will stay in the archive for virtually forever, and will be linked in the other blog posts and comments to spread out its influence. What online newspapers should pursue is not to jump into the futile competition with the rest of the Internet information sources, but to produce reference-worthy material, which can only be achieved only if they have a reasonable journalistic production schedule ensuring time to dig deep into the matters. If they want not-so-deep but real-time news as well, they should go hire some bloggers.
This may prove to be an unpopular opinion, but I do not see the problem with expecting journalists to evolve just as their social roles do. In today’s society, news dissemination relies largely on the Internet and technology. Logically, journalists, as society’s primary (and most important) news disseminators, should also recognize their job to facilitate this process. The specific way various news companies are choosing to go about this task, not the underlying assumption itself, is what I see to be the most important and pragmatic part of the debate.
While it is fair that media employees should be expected to evolve as their jobs and audiences do, I would argue (just as others have pointed out) that it is unfair to both them and their readers/viewers to sacrifice good content for expediency. Racing to post pieces as fast as humanly (or technologically) possible does viewers a disservice in terms of the end-products’ lack of quality in detail and context.
At the same time, however, readers have come to expect to know things as soon as they happen. So perhaps the real problem is not the trade-off between content and expediency, but rather the reader’s expectations when viewing a breaking story. As journalists are expected to keep up with the 24-hour news cycle, perhaps modern viewers should also face expectations on their end of the news exchange. Readers might be expected to know that breaking news is just that—it is news that has not yet had the time to develop into a complete and meaningful story. They might be expected to know that in exchange for knowing things as soon as they happen, their knowledge will be limited to the most simplistic version of the story and they are inevitably sacrificing depth and breadth.
All of this being said, I fully support the strike of the Hollywood writers. Just like journalists, writers—because they are media workers too—should be expected to evolve along with technology. However, their collective decision to strike is not because they disagree with this tenet. A majority of the Hollywood writers have decided to strike because media companies are withholding the advertising revenue that is collected when shows are replayed online; they have not decided to strike simply because their work is online. If the work of writers and journalists is generating additional advertising revenue via the media companies’ web sites, those writers and journalists deserve a part of the funds. The reason for this is because media companies’ motives for putting content online is not for purely promotional purposes; it is with the intent of gaining revenue for themselves.
Ken Walsh also spoke to my J335 class so I had the opportunity to hear about his experiences and ask him questions as well. A similar topic came up in my class when a student asked how often he writes and he responded that it depends on the day. He stressed how the internet has changed his work in numerous ways (he’s covered the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush). If I remember correctly he is not compensated for his work although he is expected to do much more. I understand that the methods of media are changing and so reporters must change with the times, but no compensation for so much extra work seems unfair. It was funny to hear about how the internet has revolutionized his job as a reporter and it made me think of the active audiences of today. My generation is used to being able to know what is going on instantly via the internet and we are constantly demanding more. It is necessary as audiences have become more active for the media to evolve but it is unfair to place that extra burden on the reporters who already have various deadlines to meet. Walsh stressed that the life of a reporter is all about deadlines, but with so many more deadlines due to the Web, content can easily be lost.
My class also hosted Justin Fox, the business and economics columnist for TIME magazine, who had quite a different take. Besides his weekly column in TIME, Fox thrives on the internet (much like Sue!) and began his own blog, the Curious Capitalist, in 2006. He acknowledged that he has time to write on his blog a couple of times a day because he only writes one column per week for TIME, but said that he can understand how it is difficult for reporters with more timely deadlines. He is also not compensated for his blog, but he doe sit because he enjoys the informal atmosphere that the blog allows for because of the lack of revisions by an editor.
The nature of the business as definitely changed and requires adaptation. Mr. Walsh was helpful to students when he indicated that being able to write a good, coherent story in 5 minutes still has use because of the Internet and media websites. That enthused me because I'm a former radio news worker who sees amny similarities between writing daily Web content compared to weekly magazine articles that need to look to the future or recap recent past but are not dated material in every case.
Blogging is a different matter, as we've discussed. The stuff we write is out there for everyone so we need to take care that what we publish is what we want consumed. Blog/news writers need to use, in my view, objectivity and accuracy in outlining a basic issue from both sides, then describing why they have developed one view or another.
Anonymous has a point about greater stress for editors writing copy that may not contribute to the publication's readership or bottom line.
In general, though, I see value in headline news as a radio veteran who sees value in that type of content but no place to put it in today's market.
Perhaps we can consider Capital Times founder William T. Evjue's quote at the front of his book, A Fighting Editor (1968): "Let the people have the truth and the freedom to discuss it and all will go well." -- William T. Evjue, February 24, 1929.
Post a Comment