| My Paper's Commitment to Diversity
Respondents assessed their paper's commitment to ethnic diversity, gender
diversity, and ''fairness on sexual-orientation workplace issues.'' Again,
the papers receive generally high marks throughout, with some notable distinctions
among the dissenters. Seventy-three percent rate their paper's commitment
to ethnic diversity as ''moderate'' or ''strong,'' 92 percent say the same
for gender diversity, and 84 percent say the same for sexual-orientation
issues.
Asked their personal opinion of their paper's handling of diversity,
51 percent say their paper's commitment to ethnic diversity is appropriate.
Sixty-seven percent say the same for gender diversity, and 71 percent for
sexual-orientation issues.
 On
the commitment to ethnic diversity, those over 50 are the most
likely group to term their paper strong. Blacks are more likely
than other ethnic groups to call their papers ''weak'' on ethnic
diversity. But on the appropriateness of their paper's commitment
- whether strong, moderate or weak - the majority of each minority
group agrees that their paper's commitment is ''inadequate.''
Journalists 30 and under also are more likely than the older groups
to term the commitment inadequate.
This set of questions prompted at least as many voluntary attachments
as any other section of the survey. Some minority journalists are angry
at the treatment they perceive in the newsroom. Said one, ''Management
does not condone certain behavior; however, there is a strong undercurrent
of bias against women, minorities and gays and lesbians.'' Said another
from the minority oversample: ''Diversity in the newsroom is nonexistent,
and the future does not look bright.''
A black reporter at a Midwestern metro explained his frustration:
''We must stop fooling ourselves with this diversity talk. Where is
the action? I'm a black reporter, and you can see the favoritism and politics
that go on right before your eyes each day. As a black reporter, you can
be better than your white colleagues and be doing your job in the community,
have better sources to work with, bring in quality stories. But when it
comes time for awards or promotions - it's always the same old song.''
Another wrote: ''I feel I can do my job, or any job I'm assigned, as
well as the next person if not better. But because of the color of your
skin, people doubt you before they know of your abilities. And once you
prove yourself, you still get overlooked for assignments.''
Others (among the volunteered comments) are defensive about their paper's
commitment to diversity. A few think diversity depends on the community
in which the paper is located. A staffer at a small Eastern daily wrote:
''Our community is less diverse than nearly any community I can think
of, and our staff is not as diverse as it should be, but the problems are
at least as bad from the point of view of politics or age as they are from
the point of view of race or sexual orientation. How can we judge a commitment
to diversity when the staff is extremely small to begin with and the opportunity
to hire people of varied races and ethnic origins or sexual orientations
is extremely limited?''
An overall majority of 52 percent say their paper's commitment to gender
diversity is strong, but women are less likely than men to make this assessment.
Fifteen percent of women say their paper's commitment to gender diversity
is weak (vs. 4 percent of the men), and 38 percent of women deem their
paper's commitment inadequate (vs. 18 percent of the men).
A few women described in written comments sexist attitudes they perceived
in the newsroom. A desk editor at a Midwestern metro said the lack of female
editors in her area is inexcusable:
''I am the only woman with any authority in my sports department. Look
around the country. How many women sports editors do you count? This is
a disgrace. There are plenty of women out there with the management skills
to do these jobs. . . . We need to work harder at changing attitudes, and
that often starts at the top. And I don't favor promoting women into sports
jobs simply because of their gender. We're not doing them any favors by
doing that, but we need to provide a nurturing environment if we're serious
about diversity in any area of the newsroom.''
In explaining her gloomy assessment of her advancement prospects, one
young black sportswriter (from the minority oversample) cites racism and
sexism as dual barriers to advancement: ''I'm in a predominantly middle-aged
(or older), white, male field. The outlook for advancement is grim, and
the outlook for my staying in the field for more than 10 years is disappointing.
The major reason for this is sexual and racial harassment from sources
and other reporters and editors in the office, with the sexual harassment
being worse [than the racial].''
White men seem tolerant of their paper's diversity efforts. Thirty-four
percent of the white males say their paper's commitment to ethnic diversity
is strong, while 23 percent of the minority journalists rate their paper
as strong. In answer to a related question, nearly 8 percent of white males
say their paper's commitment to ethnic diversity is ''excessive,'' which
is higher than the 1 percent ''excessive'' among minority respondents,
but not exactly a groundswell of protest. Likewise for gender diversity:
2 percent of the women and 10 percent of the men say their papers are ''excessive''
in their commitment to gender diversity.
While strong majorities agree that their paper's commitment to sexual-orientation
fairness is moderate to strong and that this is appropriate, journalists
over 50 are more likely than younger colleagues to think the commitment
''excessive.'' Blacks and Asian Americans are more likely than whites or
Hispanics to think the commitment is inadequate. More than 42 percent of
the gays, lesbians and bisexual journalists feel their paper's commitment
is weak (compared to 16 percent of the heterosexual journalists), and 60
percent of that group feel the commitment is inadequate (compared to 25
percent).
A handful of respondents offered comments related to the sexual-orientation
questions. A staffer at a Midwestern metro said, ''This paper is far better
than most, but they still are giving lip service to true diversity. They
are politically correct above all, but not truly interested in fair-handed
treatment for all their people. . . . ''
A journalist at a midsized Southern paper said, ''I couldn't answer
the gay/lesbian workplace questions because we have no openly gay staffers
- which speaks volumes.''
Two Spouses, One Newsroom
An issue in 1990s newsrooms is whether to permit hiring both members
of a couple to jobs in the same newsroom. Does hiring both journalists
produce untenable conflicts of interest and risk diluting hiring standards?
Does a policy against such hires deny qualified journalists their rightful
opportunity for employment and unfairly restrict the mobility of two-journalist
couples? The newsroom answer is overwhelming: Allow both to be hired.
Ninety-one percent approve of hiring both partners on some basis. The
survey question offered four alternative policies, and the clear-cut favorite
(with a 47 percent plurality) is a policy allowing spousal hiring as long
as one does not supervise the other.
Supervisors are more likely than the other work groups to disapprove
of the idea altogether, as are journalists over 50. Women are more likely
than men to agree with the plurality-winning idea (approve as long as one
is not the other's supervisor).
My Own Supervisor: Good Skills, But We Need Leadership, Too
One of the most important factors in any employee's overall job satisfaction
is what he or she thinks of the boss. Most journalists think highly of
their immediate supervisors, but there's one change from 1988 that should
give managers pause. The percentage of the workforce who believe their
supervisor is top-notch has dropped. Forty-two percent thought their supervisor
was ''outstanding'' in 1988; in 1996, when the highest grade possible was
changed to ''excellent,'' 24 percent made this choice. Eleven percent chose
''poor,'' similar to 1988's 13 percent. The majority of 1996 respondents
believe their supervisor falls somewhere between the two extremes. This
pattern of ratings holds steady regardless of ethnic group, age, gender
or job type.
And what makes a good boss good? Respondents were asked to identify
the single major strength and major weakness of their supervisor; no clear-cut
characteristics dominate either set of responses. But a pattern emerges,
nonetheless. Leadership is hardly ever mentioned as a strength (6 percent
choose it), and it is the most often-chosen response (36 percent) among
the weaknesses. At least one-third of every job group, at least 28 percent
of every age group, 36 percent of both men and women, and at least 29 percent
of every ethnic group cite a lack of leadership as the single major weakness
of the immediate supervisor.
Running a close second as a supervisory weakness is a cousin to leadership:
''poor at encouraging people and giving helpful feedback.'' Thirty-five
percent of the respondents identify this weakness as the worst, and again
this percentage holds firm across gender, age, and job types.
All minority groups rate ''poor at encouraging people'' ahead of ''lack
of leadership'' as the single greatest weakness of their supervisors.
The leadership and encouragement should have a human face, according
to one respondent: ''While editors should strive for perfection, they should
continue to remember that their staffs are imperfect people. We should
create an atmosphere where failure is not good but is not the end of a
career (or at least holds that threat). Reporters should not have to sweat
the occasional mistake.''
As for supervisors' strengths, journalists seem to value ''intelligence
and general knowledge'' and ''news sense and journalism skills'' equally
highly. Nearly 36 percent say the greatest strength is their boss' skills,
and ''knowledge'' resonates for 33 percent. Only 8 percent think ''lack
of journalism skills'' is the major weakness, and only 4 percent think
''lack of knowledge'' is the problem.
''Good at encouraging people and giving helpful feedback'' runs third
in the list of strengths, but a distant third at 18 percent.
Does your supervisor listen to your ideas?
Most journalists do think ideas are welcome. In fact, 58 percent say
they feel their ideas are ''always welcome'' with their immediate supervisor.
Thirty-two percent think their ideas are ''sometimes welcome, sometimes
not,'' and only 10 percent say their ideas are unwanted. The youngest journalists
are especially likely to think their ideas are welcome.
What This Place Needs
A major shift has occurred in terms of journalists' top priorities for
improving newsroom working conditions. Eight years ago, a 36 percent plurality
favored improving management-staff communication. In the new survey the
most popular improvement, at 36 percent, is to expand the newsroom staff
- perhaps a reflection of concerns in the wake of newsroom downsizing.
Twenty-three percent now think communication is the top priority. Another
23 percent see ''improve compensation'' as the greatest need - about the
same as the 25 percent in 1988.
Consistent with the ''expand the staff'' recommendation above, "the
most significant problem'' in the newsroom in 1996 is that "the company
doesn't devote enough resources to do a good job.'' This is the choice
of 30 percent of the respondents (up from 20 percent in 1988).
In close second place is staff morale, 28 percent in 1996, compared
with 29 percent in 1988. There is also significant resonance with ''lack
of time to do a good job'' (21 percent) and ''newsroom lacks a clear mission''
(19 percent).
A few respondents discussed morale generally. A staffer at a Midwestern
metro wrote, ''As we're pressed harder and harder, we're getting more and
more unhappy. And it shows in our dealings with our colleagues, our work,
our newspaper. There are a lot of people simply mailing it in.''
Can We Talk?
Communication, all managers are told, is one of the most important aspects
of management. We saw, in the assessments of supervisors above, that newspaper
journalists are concerned about their managers' inability to ''encourage
people and give helpful feedback'' - a vital process of newsroom communication.
The 1996 questionnaire included for the first time a battery of questions
about different modes of communication in the newsroom, which led off with
that all-important f-word: feedback.
Twenty-nine percent of newsroom employees see ''feedback on the work
that you do'' as occurring regularly - that's up from 24 percent in 1988.
More troubling, however, is that nearly as many (27 percent) think feedback
occurs only rarely. That almost matches the 28 percent of ''rarelys'' in
the 1988 survey. The remaining 45 percent see feedback as occasional. This
distribution is the same across gender, age, job type and ethnic group
(with the exception of editorial writers, who more often see feedback as
regular).
A few respondents attached explanations of their dissatisfaction with
feedback. Said a staffer at a Midwestern metro:
''The only feedback we get is when we do something wrong. And when we
seek help, we are nearly always told to figure out the answers ourselves.
That is no way to manage people. . . .''
The questionnaire sought journalists' opinions on a number of modes
of communication: staff meetings, one-on-one discussions, in-house seminars,
in-house newsletters and online bulletin boards. They were first asked
how often each occurs, and then whether each form of communication should
occur more often. Here's a quick summary of the perceptions of frequency,
and then the opinions.
It's clear that in-house newsletters are alive and popular; they are
the only form of communication seen as ''regular'' by a majority, and a
whopping 72 percent think the present level of frequency is just fine.
On the other end of the spectrum is the in-house seminar. Only 12 percent
of the workforce see seminars as a regular occurrence, yet the largest
majority, 57 percent, would like seminars more often. Journalists 30 and
under and photographers and artists are especially likely to favor more
in-house seminars, while those over 50 and editorial writers are less likely
to want more seminars.
One-on-one discussions occur regularly for more than one-third of the
workforce, and a majority of 55 percent would like to have them more often.
This seems to echo the perception of a lack of feedback (see My Own Supervisor,
on page 15) from managers. Less than 1 percent of the workforce could do
with fewer one-on-ones. This can be seen as an improvement over eight years
earlier. The wording of the questions was different then, but ''one-on-one
discussions'' was the clear favorite in a list of choices for ''best way
to improve communication.'' Such discussions are still sought after, but
apparently the need today seems greater for in-house seminars (which, by
the way, captured only 6 percent of the ''best way to improve communication''
vote in 1988).
Journalists don't seem enthralled with electronic communication in the
newsroom. One in four has regular communication on a ''bulletin board''
setup; less than two out of every five would like more of that kind of
communication.
''Show Me the Money'' - Especially at Smaller Papers
Issues of salary and benefits remained a major concern in the 1996 survey.
Twenty-three percent in 1996 identified ''low pay and benefits'' as their
biggest complaint with the job (with three other ''complaints'' clustered
in the low-to-mid-20s as well). In 1988 salary was the biggest complaint
for 25 percent.
Low pay is a more pressing issue today for reporters and copy editors
than for the other job categories, and more pressing for journalists 30
and under than for older journalists.
In the question on the number-one priority for change in the newsroom,
''improve compensation'' is once again tied at a distant second, behind
newsroom staffing. ''Improve compensation'' came in behind communication
in 1988. And there was no particular work group, age group, gender or ethnic
group that seems extraordinarily concerned about improving overall compensation.
Where the pay issue does rear its head, however, is in the question
on why journalists would leave the business. The percentage citing financial
reasons is down from 1988's 32 percent to 26 percent, but money is still
the top reason for leaving newspapers. It cuts across all age, gender,
ethnic and job groups.
Money concerns seem especially prominent at smaller papers. ''Low pay
and benefits'' is the biggest complaint about the job for 35 percent of
the journalists at papers of less than 50,000 circulation. Pay is the top
complaint for 18 percent of those at papers of more than 50,000. Likewise,
32 percent of the respondents at the under 50,000-papers say the primary
reason they would ever leave journalism would be financial (far and away
the most frequent choice of those at the smaller papers), whereas 24 percent
of those at the over-50,000 papers would leave for money reasons. Also,
when choosing their number-one priority for improving newsroom working
conditions, 30 percent of the journalists at papers in the under-50,000
range select "improve compensation and benefits" the top choice for
19 percent of those at papers over 50,000.
Have journalists noticed any change in the newsroom budget over the
last five years? Most definitely, and they think these have not been changes
for the better. A 57 percent majority think the newsroom budget has declined
relative to company revenues; 17 percent think the budget has increased.
Almost half of the workforce feel the budget at their paper is ''somewhat
inadequate,'' but 21 percent call the budget ''very inadequate,'' for a
''dissatisfaction'' total of 71 percent. These views cut across all job
categories, ethnic groups, ages and both genders.
A staffer at a midsized Southern daily made this comment about newspaper
economics:
''Newspapers have never been good employers, and I work for a chain
worse than most along these lines. We have watched its commitment to quality
journalism dwindle steadily over the years. We work with obsolete telecommunications
and computer equipment. . . . The paper won't spend much on lawyers to
fight Sunshine (freedom of information) issues, so local government agencies
don't take our records requests very seriously. Travel requests have become
difficult. Our newspaper library doesn't have the money to subscribe to
key newspapers or electronic databases. It's very demoralizing. And the
paper is looking to cut more, lay people off and raise profits.''
The Ultimate Question
The journalists were asked a simple concluding question: ''If you had
it to do over again, would you choose newspapering as a career?''
A strong majority reply in the affirmative: 77 percent. That's not as
strong as the 84 percent ''yes'' responses the question drew in 1988, however.
It reflects the erosion of satisfaction evident throughout the survey,
but it still represents a healthy majority. The affirmative response cut
across all age, ethnic, gender and job groups, with two exceptions. Only
61 percent of the copy editors say they would do it all again, and a rousing
90 percent of the editorial writers say they would.
 This
question prompted several comments, most of which seemed to come
from the 23 percent who harbor regrets:
''If I knew at the beginning what I know now, I probably would not have
entered this field, or at least would have given myself training in other
areas so an exit would be easier to accomplish.''
Or, ''Originally I thought journalism would make for an exciting and
satisfying career, and there are moments when those feelings exist. But
mostly, it's a job, just like any other job, filled with much more routine
than excitement. . . . I'd rather be somewhere where I'm truly making a
difference.''
Several of the writers described a changes for the worse in newspaper
journalism. From a staffer at midsized Southern daily: ''All of these obstacles
[cited in several of the questions in the middle of the survey] have poisoned
my attitude toward newspapers, which is too bad, because at its root, it's
fun, important and I'm good at it.''
And a last word of advice from a baby-boom staffer at a Midwestern metro:
''I still believe that in some places journalism is a glorious and noble
profession. But now, we're ruining it by letting consultants and bean counters
who have no clue about our business into our newsroom as policy makers.
. . . I was talking to a 41-year-old colleague the other day who like me
grew up in the Chicago area. We both shook our heads and agreed that we
were the lucky ones - that we were just old enough to have caught a few
good years in newspapering before it changed forever - and was ruined.
Isn't that sad?
''If we want newspapers to have a strong future, we need to turn inward
a bit and look at the people who are producing them. It won't matter how
well the readers are served if the people doing the serving aren't motivated
and proud. Restore those qualities to the profession and the other things
will take care of themselves.''
| Back to Top |
Table
of Contents |
|
