Last Updated: May 26, 1999
Printer-friendly version
The newsroom work force
Newspaper work force is grayer, less hopeful
Human Resources report finds newspaper journalists
are older, on the whole, than in 1988, and less positive about the future;
increased diversity, though, is a bright note
By Anne Saul
The newspaper journalists of the ’90s are older and more diverse, although
they still do not reflect the ethnicity of the nation as a whole. They
also are less committed to making newspapering their entire career, don’t
feel that their newspaper has improved and believe newspapers will be less
influential in the future.
Those, and others, were the findings of a major ASNE Human Resources
Committee study of 1,037 journalists from 61 U.S. newspapers. The survey
reprised a similar one conducted in 1988, and revealed some interesting
comparisons — and some disturbing trends.
Paul Voakes of the Indiana University School of Journalism analyzed
and presented the results in the report, "The newspaper journalists of
the ’90s."
Providing the response on how editors might act on the results of the
survey was Gene Foreman, deputy editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer and
1996-97 chair of the committee.
Personal characteristics and demographics
Findings: There are fewer young people in the newsrooms of the
’90s. The number of journalists age 30 and under shrunk from the 29 percent
reported in the 1988 survey to 20 percent. The number of "30-somethings"
is down from 44 percent to 37 percent, and the mature 41- to 50-year-old
group has more than doubled from 15 percent to 32 percent. In 1988, it
was a young person’s newsroom. About three-fourths of newsroom staffs were
40 or younger. Now it’s closer to half.
Foreman: Veteran staffers give us expertise, stability, sophistication,
institutional memory. Some of these folks may not be easy to motivate.
We have to be thinking about how we can keep alive, in this aging newsroom,
the spirit of creativity and idealism that brought these people to us many
years ago.
Findings: There appears to be greater diversity among newsroom
staffs (an increase from 7 percent to 11 percent). However, daily newspapers
remain far short of matching minorities’ 26 percent share of the U.S. population.
Minority staffers tend to be younger than non-minority staffers. The number
of women staffers has not changed since the 1988 survey; they comprise
about 37 percent of the newsroom work force.
Fewer journalists said they are planning to make newspapers their sole
career. Women and minorities, in particular, predict they will leave early.
The most often cited reason for leaving is still money, especially at smaller
newspapers. But "working conditions" and "stress" now run a close second
and third — particularly at larger newspapers. Minorities leave if they
see more opportunity for advancement elsewhere.
Foreman: It’s clear. Not only did we recruit a smaller crop of
beginning journalists in the last eight years, but many are not committed
to staying. We’ve seen that women and minorities are well represented in
the youngest age group. So, retention efforts have to be a key element
of our campaign to achieve a diverse newsroom.
Findings: Newspaper journalists seem not to be as ambitious as
they used to be. Almost a third of the work force aspire to no higher than
reporter, copy editor or photographer. The percentage of those trying to
get the top job of editor or publisher has dropped to one-third. This could
be a function of the aging work force. A lot of people value developing
as a writer or copy editor. Maybe they don’t want the management job to
be their only measure of success.
The percentage of journalists rating their newspaper as "excellent"
and saying their newspaper is improving has shrunk dramatically. Only 14
percent rated their newspapers as "very high," down from 34 percent eight
years ago. Only 40 percent said their newspaper is improving — down from
54 percent in 1988.
The percentage of those who said newspapers would be a less important
part of American life rose from one-third in 1988 to more than half in
1996.
In 1988, the top priority for improving the newsroom was improving management/staff
communication. Now it’s to expand the newsroom staff — perhaps reflecting
concern in the wake of budget freezes and downsizing.
A large majority (71 percent) felt their newsroom budget is now inadequate
to enable the newsroom to do a good job.
Foreman: The responses … taken together do create a disturbing
picture. It’s one of mass pessimism about our business. Maybe the most
important single thing an editor can do is to articulate the purpose of
our work, keep the staff focused on that and help build confidence in the
future.
Rating newspapers
Findings: Journalists gave high ratings to their newspaper’s
coverage of government and politics, business and economics, crime, education,
sports and entertainment. The "good" or "excellent" ratings for coverage
of young people, minorities and gays and lesbians was nearer one-fourth.
Fifty-three percent of the white journalists thought their newspaper’s
commitment to ethnic and racial diversity has been appropriate, but only
one quarter of the black journalists, 34 percent of Hispanics and 31 percent
of the Asian Americans agreed.
Seventy-one percent of the men and 61 percent of the women said their
paper’s commitment to gender diversity has been appropriate.
Foreman: Journalists generally support our efforts to diversify
the staff, and we noted no significant white male backlash. On the other
hand, the minority journalists are telling us clearly that they think we’re
not doing enough, and they are backed up by numbers, because we’re still
far short of matching the percentage of minorities in the general population.
We’re told by all the journalists, regardless of ethnicity, that we’re
not doing a good enough job of covering young people, minorities and gays.
It follows that it takes a diverse staff to improve coverage in these areas.
Findings: Generally speaking, journalists think their bosses
do a good job, but the percentage who rated their bosses as outstanding
dropped from 42 percent to 24 percent.
The majority rated intelligence and general knowledge and news sense/journalism
skills as their bosses’ major strengths. But lack of leadership and lack
of feedback accounted for nearly three-fourths of the weaknesses identified.
Only six percent said that leadership was their supervisor’s major strength.
Foreman: The survey findings chart a clear course for editors
in selecting and training managers. Mid-level editors have traditionally
been selected because they’re smart and they’re good journalists, and certainly
the survey findings confirm that. But we’re also being told by the staff
that it does want us to be more attentive to leadership skills in selecting
their leaders, and we ought to provide the training they need to succeed
in these new assignments, which are often quite unlike their other assignments.
Civic journalism
Findings: Journalists approved of a newspaper’s efforts to report
on alternative solutions to community problems and to develop enterprise
stories focusing attention on a problem and trying to help the community
move toward a solution.
But they were less enthusiastic about polling the public to determine
political issues and then getting the candidates to focus on those issues,
and about conducting town meetings to identify community issues and then
trying to find solutions to the identified problems.
Only nine percent said they had a problem with a reporter, photographer
or copy editor joining a community group as long as the journalist isn’t
covering that group. About three-fourths had no problem with the editor
being active in community organizations.
However, 55 percent felt less involved than other people in their communities,
compared to 41 percent in 1988. Only 13 percent said they felt more involved
than other people in their communities.
Foreman: It’s ironic that even as journalists are expressing
majority approval of community involvement by themselves, and by their
papers, they seem to be withdrawing from personal involvement. And that
may be a result of the demands of their jobs. It appears from our survey
that journalists are working harder and longer hours. In any case, we think
that this is a contradiction worth examining.
Would they do it again?
Findings: Seventy-seven percent said that if they had to do it
again, they would still choose newspapering as a career. That was down
from 84 percent in 1988, but is still a strong indication of satisfaction.
Foreman: Newsroom employees not only are hard working, but they
remain dedicated to the ideals of journalism. ... Maybe it’s this persistent
devotion that resulted in some of the frustration we noted in the findings.
We know the industry faces new challenges. Some are technological, some
are economic and some demographic. But a work force that is still as dedicated
to its ideals as ours is offers the industry a resource for meeting those
challenges.
Saul is news systems editor for Gannett Co. Inc., Arlington, Va.
