Journalists liked their jobs eight years ago, and they
like them now. But this time around, far fewer describe either the newspaper
they work for or their immediate supervisor as ''excellent.'' If they could
make just one improvement, more than a third would expand the staff. The
majority fear for the future of newspapers. And fewer journalists plan to
stick around to receive the gold watch.
Despite the grumbling you're likely to hear around any given coffee pot
in any given newsroom on any given day, newspaper journalists are still
basically satisfied with their work - and their own papers. Three-fourths
say their current job meets or exceeds their expectations, and three-fourths
say they would choose newspapering if they had it all to do again. Strong
majorities rate their own paper's coverage and treatment of most topical
areas and groups in society as high-quality. Some other measures, however,
reveal changes over the last eight years that suggest a few chips on the
edges of this otherwise strong occupational morale.
The 1996 survey also uncovered new, previously unexplored attitudes about
other aspects of newsroom life.
This section of the report covers a broad range of newspaper journalists'
attitudes: their satisfaction with their jobs and careers; their assessments
of their own paper's coverage and treatment of various topical areas and
groups; opinions about their supervisors; reactions to various forms of
newsroom communication; and their thoughts about a few money-related issues.
Satisfaction With the Job and Career
The vast majority of today's newspaper journalists are quite happy with
their work: 76 percent say they like their current job better than their
most recent previous job, and 76 percent say their job either meets or exceeds
their expectations. As one respondent from a small Eastern daily wrote on
her questionnaire, ''I thoroughly enjoy my job, despite the night hours,
intensity and high staff turnover.''
Eight years ago, 81 percent preferred the present job to the previous
one. In 1988, 78 percent said the job either met or exceeded expectations.
The interesting demographic difference is that the younger journalists
seem to be the happiest. Those over 40 are significantly more likely than
their younger colleagues to prefer the previous job to the present one.
Photographers, artists and editorial writers are more likely than reporters,
supervisors and copy editors to like the current job better.
Copy editors are especially likely to prefer the previous job. Copy editors
also are more likely than the others to say their job fails to meet their
expectations. In a turnabout from eight years ago, supervisors now are no
happier on these measures than those in other job categories.
What's the best part of the job? Again in 1996, the clear choice (again
a 58 percent majority) is ''the opportunity to be creative and the daily
challenge.'' At a distant second place (32 percent) is ''dealing with significant
matters and having an impact.'' The daily impact is the top choice for one
group, the editorial writers, while copy editors and photographers/artists
are far less likely to value that impact. The recognition, the pay and fringe
benefits, and ''working with others in the newsroom'' each garner 5 percent
or less.
The worst part of the job, as with the 1988 survey, depends on whom you
talk to. Having little impact, having little opportunity to be creative,
low pay and benefits, and ''too many hours required to get the job done''
each capture between one-fifth and one-fourth of the responses. The youngest
journalists are more likely to complain about the pay and benefits, as are
the reporters.
Several respondents felt compelled to expand their answers to this question,
especially if that answer was ''too many hours required to get the job done.''
Said a staffer at a West Coast metro:
''There's no way most people at my paper - at least people on the news
desk - could have answered this survey 'on company time,' as the instructions
suggest. Our workload and deadline pressure are so heavy it would be close
to impossible to carve out the time. . . . ''
A mid-level editor at a Midwestern metro explained:
''By marking Choice 'E' (too many hours required) I make myself sound
like I'm lazy. I'm not afraid of hard work. But for too many years, I have
worked 60-hour weeks and now, when I have reached a position of responsibility
and should have a little control over my schedule, the workload is simply
getting worse. Journalism? Working with reporters? It rarely happens for
the number of meetings I must attend, and planning sessions I must prepare
for and performance goals I have to write. In order to fulfill my own need
to perform journalism, and because I feel guilty about the quality of the
time my writers are getting from me, my work with them often stretches long
into the night. We risk the very real possibility that folks like me - I'm
well- educated, experienced and 39 years old and should be at the peak of
my prime working years - are burning out.''
Aspirations and Advancement
The journalists in the survey were asked to think about their future
as well as their present. Here a paradox emerges: The percentage of newspaper
employees who think their advancement possibilities are generally ''good''
or ''excellent'' has risen to a majority (53 percent) over the last eight
years. Yet the proportion of news workers who feel that optimistic about
advancement at their own paper remains at about 40 percent. Staffers seem
to feel better about the industry's offerings for them than they do about
their chances at their own papers.
Age is a telling factor: Journalists over 40 are the least likely to
rate their chances as excellent, either generally or at their own paper,
and the most likely to choose ''poor.'' Unsurprisingly, supervisors feel
the most bullish (of all the work categories) about their chances for promotion,
while copy editors are the most bearish.
There is a shift in the nature of the aspirations: Fewer journalists
aspire to the top ranks, and more seem content at the level at which they
are working now. The percentage wanting to end careers at the reporter-copy
editor-photographer level has risen from 23 to 31 percent, while the percentage
of those hoping someday to be top editor or publisher has fallen from 44
percent to 36 percent. One-third still aspire to middle-management positions.
As one might expect, the youngest journalists are more likely than the other
age groups to hope for the top positions while the oldest journalists, more
realistic about their career paths, are less likely to dream of running
the paper. Among the job categories, only supervisors and editorial writers
seem particularly interested in the top positions. And reporters are especially
unlikely to aspire to levels above reporting.
Some respondents offered comments about their aspirations. One mid-level
editor at a Midwestern metro said newsroom reorganization could have a deadening
effect on ambition: ''By going to a team structure, the newspaper's top
management has taken away nearly all the jobs to which many of us once aspired.
Once you reach team leader, there's little place to go. And I'm a big believer
that when you take away goals and things for people to reach for, their
enthusiasm is quick to follow, along with the quality of their work.''
A few others explained that they wanted to advance in journalism as reporters,
not editors, but saw little opportunity to do so. ''If I left the business,''
offered one reporter, ''it would be because there is no way to advance as
a reporter without moving into the editing ranks. Generally I am not interested
in editing.'' Another reporter said, ''The biggest obstacle is the failure
of the paper to create a career track for reporters aspiring to be better
reporters, not editors. The paper provides virtually no training for honing
reporting and writing skills.''
There is also a subtle shift in the size of paper to which journalists
aspire. Eight years ago 42 percent of the workforce hoped to move on to
a larger paper; that figure was 36 percent in 1996. The group preferring
to stay at a paper of their current size has grown from 54 percent to 60
percent.
What if you were doing the same work five years from now? More journalists
would feel all right than unhappy - an indication of either lowered career
expectations or increased job satisfaction. The ''feel pretty good'' response
is up from eight years ago, to 47 percent of the workforce, and the ''unhappy''
group is down to 36 percent. (Seventeen percent say they would have no strong
feelings about it.)
Obstacles to Advancement
The biggest obstacle to advancement is the competition for a particular
position, at least for 64 percent of the workforce. As a staffer at a midsized
Southern paper put it, ''The market is glutted with baby boomers.''
Nearly 20 percent feel their biggest obstacle is lack of experience.
Unsurprisingly, the younger journalists are more likely to blame lack of
experience. While ''gender'' is the big obstacle for only 11 percent, it's
interesting that the journalists over 40 are more likely than younger colleagues
to choose gender as an obstacle - especially interesting considering the
preponderance of men in that age bracket. Also, men are more likely than
women to blame ''minority status'' (although the difference is only 6 percent
vs. 3 percent). One respondent's comment may shed light on this pattern:
''My minority status is that I'm older than 50.'' Said a staffer at a Southern
daily: ''You need to add a choice [to be included with the listed 'obstacles']
that is 'age,' or 'age discrimination.' ''
Several respondents had concerns about affirmative action blocking the
advancement of white males. Said a reporter at a West Coast metro:
''I think most good journalists know that for the good of the paper we
need a diversity of people at every level in the newsroom. But it's also
a fact - or at least a strong perception - that racial balancing can be
a major obstacle to individual career advancement.''
''Minority status'' is not seen as the principal obstacle by most minority
journalists. Thirty-seven percent of blacks, and 18 percent of the Hispanics,
see it as the biggest obstacle. But competition is still at least as important
an obstacle as minority status for all minority groups. And 17 percent of
the gays, lesbians or bisexuals in the survey say their sexual orientation
is what is holding them back.
Journalists are still fairly cynical about how people are promoted at
their paper. In the view of 38 percent of the workforce, the principal basis
for advancement is merit. But 34 percent say it is politics, and 23 percent
say it is convenience (about the same percentages as eight years earlier).
Supervisors and editorial writers are more likely to believe it's merit,
while copy editors, women, blacks and Hispanics are more likely to choose
politics. The youngest age groups are more likely than the over-30s to see
seniority.
If I Were to Leave . . .
Fewer journalists are planning to make journalism their sole career.
Whereas eight years ago 49 percent of the journalists in the survey predicted
they would leave newspapers in their 60s, 43 percent make that prediction
now. This shift is even more significant considering that the 1996 workforce
is older than the 1988 workforce. The percentage planning to get out of
the business in their 40s and 50s has risen from 33 to 45 percent. Naturally,
the older the journalist, the more likely to plan to retire in the 60s.
 Of concern to those interested in diversity, however, is that blacks
and Hispanics are significantly more likely than whites (or the
other minorities) to want to leave the business before age 40 (although
some of the difference is explained by the fact that 70 percent
of the black and Hispanic workforce are 40 or younger, while only
55 percent of the white workforce are that young).
There is also a significant difference in the plans of young men and
women: Young men are far more likely to want to stay in journalism. For
example, 43 percent of the men 30 and under say they won't leave journalism
until they are at least 50 years old; only 20 percent of the women 30 and
under make that same speculation. And 55 percent of those young women say
they would leave journalism before they turn 40. Only 32 percent of the
young men say they would leave the business that young.
If you left, what would you do? A lot depends on what the respondent
is doing now. Generally, fewer journalists seem interested in going into
public relations, government or business, and slightly more seem interested
in teaching and writing. Writing remains the top choice, at 39 percent.
There seems to be no predominant reason why journalists would leave journalism.
''Financial reasons'' is the choice of 26 percent of the sample, but working
conditions (21 percent), ''reduce stress'' (19 percent), family considerations
(17 percent) and an opportunity for advancement elsewhere (16 percent) all
resonate with a substantial number. Those in their 40s - a group with a
substantial number of managers - are more likely than any other age group
to leave mainly to reduce stress, and those in their 30s are more likely
than others to leave because of family considerations.
Reasons for leaving tend to vary according to the size of the newspaper
(see ''Show Me the Money,'' page 16). Reducing stress would be the top reason
for 26 percent of the journalists at the largest papers (more than 250,000
in circulation), compared to 17 percent for those at papers smaller than
250,000.
Several journalists attached comments indicating that the survey's range
of responses didn't capture the reasons they might leave. A few minority
journalists cited discrimination as a potential reason. A staffer at an
Eastern metro said the opportunity for a different professional challenge
was appealing:
''I expect one day to leave newspapers, but it would be because I want
to work on a larger scale and use more of my creativity. Newspapers really
could not offer the environment I need. And they aren't supposed to. But
I do not regret my time in the profession. I've learned a lot, and have
great respect for a good number of people who are struggling to redefine
an institution.''
Rating My Own Paper
One of the most dramatic shifts in opinion in the survey is the rating
of the overall quality the respondents give their own papers. Eight years
ago 34 percent rated their paper ''very high.'' In 1996 the wording of the
top category was changed to ''excellent,'' but that doesn't explain the
drop to just 14 percent in 1996. The percentage of respondents rating their
paper as ''poor'' declined, from 5 percent to 2 percent. The remaining 84
percent rate their paper as either ''fair'' (27 percent) or ''good'' (57
percent).
The same trend is evident in the journalists' assessment of where their
paper is going. Only 40 percent believe their paper is improving, down from
a 54 percent majority in 1988. The percentage claiming their paper is ''getting
worse'' rose from 13 to 21 percent.
Newsroom supervisors are more likely than any other work group to say
their paper is good or excellent and that it is improving. Copy editors
are the least likely to agree.
The newspaper ratings vary significantly according to the size of the
paper. More than 21 percent of the journalists at papers above 100,000 in
circulation rate their papers as excellent, but that praise is given by
only 7 percent of the journalists at papers under 50,000.
Are the journalists any more optimistic about the future of newspapers
in general? No. Another fairly dramatic shift in opinion was that those
asserting that newspapers 10 years from now will be a more important part
of American life decreased from 12 percent eight years ago to 4 percent
in 1996. Those choosing ''less important part of American life'' went from
one-third to more than half of newspaper journalists.
''I think newspapers need a new mission,'' a respondent wrote. ''I think
news has to be redefined; the role of the paper in a community must be restructured.''
Speaking for the new minority, another staffer, at a midsized West Coast
paper, staunchly defended the business: ''It's ridiculous to think print
doesn't have a future. This 5,000-year-old technology is still the fastest,
clearest way of communicating complex ideas. Whether the text is online
or on paper, everyone should stop pissing in their pants and concentrate
on giving their readers something worth reading.''
Along the same lines, respondents were asked how well their paper is
connecting with its readers (a question not asked eight years ago). Most
journalists offer measured praise: 73 percent say it's ''on-again, off-again,''
while only 21 percent say their paper connects well. This pattern cuts across
all ethnic and work groups, for both men and women - except editorial writers,
who are more likely to think their paper connects well.
Speaking of editorial writers, another new question for 1996 sought opinions
on the ''connections'' between the paper's editorial positions and readers.
A sizable plurality, 46 percent, say their paper's positions are in sync
with readers. However, 35 percent say their paper is to left of readers'
views, and 20 percent say their paper is to the right. Editorial writers
are far more likely than any other group to claim that the paper's positions
are in sync with readers.
But is today's paper a good read? Sometimes it is, journalists think.
Thirty-six percent say their paper is ''very interesting'' to read, while
57 percent say it is ''occasionally'' interesting. Considering how grudging
most journalists are in their praise of journalism, this is a substantial
endorsement of the quality of their colleagues' writing and editing. The
''rarely interesting'' contingent measures 8 percent. The pattern holds
regardless of age, job, gender or ethnic group.
Coverage of Specific Areas
For the first time in the workforce survey, journalists were asked what
they thought of their paper's coverage of certain areas to which papers
devote resources. In the coverage of government and politics, business and
economics, crime, education, sports, and entertainment, the assessment is
positive. More than 79 percent think their paper's coverage of government
and politics is either good or excellent. Seventy-seven percent accord these
ratings to coverage of sports; 72 percent to coverage of crime; 60 percent
to coverage of education; 55 percent to coverage of entertainment; and only
52 percent to coverage of business and economics.
These responses cut fairly evenly across gender, job type and age, although
the over-40 set tends to be more critical of education coverage and more
impressed with government and political coverage. The twentysomethings are
the most critical when it comes to entertainment coverage.
Several journalists qualified their praise with explanatory notes:
''We do the institutional stuff well - government, politics, crime. We're
not so good with the stuff where someone isn't handing you a news release
to get you started. . . . ''
''We do big-event coverage very well. People plan and discuss well in
advance, appropriate space and staffing is arranged, and it works. . . .
''
''Our coverage of the routine is just that - routine. We generally don't
have enough space to ever turn the routine into something special because
if we did, then other essential items would have to be omitted. . . . ''
Diversity at My Paper
The journalists also were asked what they thought of their paper's coverage
of minorities, gays and young people, and about how various groups are treated
in the newsroom: minorities, whites, gays, young people, middle-aged people,
old people, women, and men.
In the coverage assessments, journalists think their papers don't do
as well here as with the standard areas. For example, 24 percent think the
coverage of young people is good or excellent, but 27 percent think it is
poor.
The harshest critics seem to be those in their 40s, perhaps baby boomers
wishing their papers offered more of interest to their children.
Coverage of minorities and gays gets equally low marks, but the ratings
vary according to ethnic group and age. Overall, nearly 28 percent give
their paper poor marks on coverage of minorities and nearly 28 percent rate
their papers as good or excellent.
Poor ratings on coverage of minorities are far more frequent among black,
Hispanic and Asian American journalists. Also, those 30 and under are more
likely to give poor marks, and those over 50 more likely to rate their papers
as excellent.
A staffer at an Eastern metro said that coverage is poor because of the
backgrounds of the journalists:
''The paper is people, and I know the institution tries hard to cover
issues fairly. Still, I believe that by being populated by middle-class
people with education and other privileges, we can only see issues through
our eyes. I would want more community involvement or perspective. I do not
yet know how this should happen, or in what manner. But I strongly believe
it should happen.''
The papers fare even worse on coverage of gays/lesbians: While 29 percent
again rate their papers as good or excellent, 38 percent say coverage of
gays is poor. And again, those over 50 are more likely than any other age
group to rate coverage as excellent, while those under 30 tend to rate their
papers as poor. The overall patterns are the same regardless of gender or
sexual orientation. Blacks are the only ethnic group that is far more likely
(than the norm) to rate coverage of gays as poor (55 percent vs. 38 percent
overall).
Despite their criticism of minority-group coverage, most journalists
think people are treated fairly in their newsrooms. Respondents were asked
whether certain groups of people were treated ''fairly and even-handedly,''
''unfairly,'' or ''better than others.'' Most choose ''fairly'' for the
newsroom treatment of middle-aged people (84 percent ''fairly''), white
people (81 percent), young people (80 percent), gays and lesbians (79 percent),
women (73 percent), men (72 percent), people of color (71 percent), and
old people (67 percent). Those who feel any of those groups are treated
unfairly are thus in a small minority, but there are interesting differences
out on those margins. For example, while the 30-and-under group is more
likely to consider treatment of young people as unfair, the over-50s are
more likely to rate young people's treatment as ''better than others.''
And the 30-and-unders are more likely than their elders to say that middle-aged
and old people are treated better than others in the newsroom.
The question on ''old people'' produced an interesting result: More than
any other group - minorities, gays, women - it is the ''old people'' in
the newsroom who are most often thought to receive unfair treatment. Nearly
27 percent of the sample say old people are treated unfairly, and aside
from the twentysomethings' dissent, this assessment cuts across all job
areas and ages, both genders and all ethnic groups.
Treatment of women, gays and minorities all hit the double digits for
the ''treated unfairly'' choice, but none exceeded 20 percent. The distinctions
among groups followed a pattern: Women are more likely than men to feel
that women are treated unfairly; blacks and Asian Americans (but not Hispanics)
are more likely to feel that minorities are treated unfairly; and gays and
lesbians are more likely to feel that they are being treated unfairly.
Women, people 30 and under, blacks, Hispanics and Asian Americans are
more likely than white men to think that white people are treated better
in the newsroom. ''Better than others'' is the choice of 11 percent of the
whites, whose numbers dominate the survey, but the overall percentage for
those who feel whites are treated better than others is 14 percent.
But the group that is most often perceived to be treated ''better than
others'' is the men. While 72 percent think men are treated fairly, 22 percent
believe they get better treatment than others, and only 6 percent feel men
are treated unfairly. The pattern holds for all age groups, but women are
more likely than men, unsurprisingly, to feel that men are treated better.
Blacks, Hispanics, Asian Americans and gays are also likely to state that
men are treated better. In fact, a majority of blacks (54 percent) say men
are treated better.
Click here to continue
with Attitudes
| Back to Top |
Table of Contents | | 
