Last Updated: March 02, 1999
Printer-friendly version
Good writing
Story-counting systems encourage mediocrity, newsroom
bullies and cost-cutting in the name of greater efficiency; editors who
know how to manage people don’t need them
Recently I’ve fielded a flurry of questions about story quotas, about
newsroom managers keeping accounts of their reporters’ productivity. Each
request takes me back to my first encounter with this pernicious practice,
in an unnamed large metropolitan daily.
The metro editor proudly showed me a system he had devised for keeping
track not only of the number of stories each of his reporters wrote, but
also where they appeared in the paper. He admitted that merely entering
the data required a lot of work on his part, so I asked what he used the
system for. He replied, “Whenever a reporter enters my office to talk to
me, I immediately call up his statistics on my screen and say, ‘How dare
you come in here wasting my time when you’ve only had X stories on the
section front in the last month?’ And the person leaves.”
Catching my breath, I asked if this system didn’t prevent communications
with his staff. And he replied, “Yes, and it keeps them in their place.”
It keeps them in their place. I have yet to see a counting system up
close that did not have at least one editor abusing it to bully reporters.
I have yet to see any of these systems producing any positive result.
Counting the space
Besides providing yet another tool for newsroom bullies, such systems
create cynicism about the purpose of newspapers, usually expressed as “filling
space between the ads.” Counting systems measure each reporter’s contribution
to space filling, rather than more important qualities, such as deep reporting,
understanding what we cover, clarity and accuracy, and explaining the world
to readers. The kind of reporting and writing we want and need requires
more time and effort and intelligence spent on each story.
Counting systems tend to push up each reporter’s daily story count,
and thin the quality of the individual pieces. Newsroom managers are more
likely to push all their reporters upward toward a newsroom average, rather
than lowering that expected average to raise overall quality. They play
into the hands of the money people, who keep cutting our newsrooms in the
name of productivity.
Lowering the average
Story counts also put pressure on reporters to conform to the newsroom
average, pressure that can result in lowered expectations and feelings
of guilt. Even some star journalists in the Barlett, Steele and French
stratosphere worry that they’re failing their colleagues by publishing
so seldom. And their colleagues do razz them about it: “Gonna be in the
paper this year, Tom?”
Recently I coached a fine reporter who had plateaued in his development
as a writer. He knew he could write a lot better if he wrote a little less,
and his editor had repeatedly urged him to cut down on daily stories and
do more in-depth pieces. So I asked him, “Why don’t you simply write less,
but deeper?” He replied that the newsroom had a story counting system,
and he didn’t want to look like someone not pulling his weight.
Managing the right things
Counting stories is easier than managing people, especially for editors
who have zero training in managing anything. Story counting distracts newsroom
managers from more important things, like helping and training their reporters
and junior editors.
A famous journalism researcher once bragged, “I can count anything.”
And I replied, “You can’t count anything I value.” Counting does manage
some things, but the wrong things.
Fry, an affiliate of the Poynter Institute, works as an independent
writing coach in Charlottesville, Va. Call him at 804/296-6830.
