Some would say that the Web has facilitated the job of the journalist. Others would say the tasks of online journalists are much more complex.
Journalists at the Wall Street Journal are of the latter opinion, rebelling against a management that they feel is demanding too much.
Those who consider the Web a boon to journalists are correct: it's easier to do research, it's easier to communicate, and it's easier to publish articles.
The problem is that those who consider it a burden are also correct: on top of the traditional everyday functions of journalists, they now must interact with readers, create podcasts and blogs and succumb to the pressures of a 24-hour news cycle.
A union of journalists at WSJ recently declared that its journalists would no longer be doing external or internal interviews pro bono.
The Journal's reporters regularly appear on CNBC, through an agreement that the cable news station has with the paper, but are not remunerated.
For their website, WSJ staffers also conduct webcast and podcast interviews free of charge, a task against which they are also revolting.
As most things in life, the real matter here is time and money. Why are staff journalists wasting time being interviewed on television and for the Internet for free when they should be out there digging into stories and interviewing people, the job for which they are paid?
The Journal's staff is not the first to feel the burnout from the effects new media is having on their profession.
The Washington Post encountered journalist discontent when it was revealed that many staffers writing blogs for the paper were not compensated for the extra time it took to write the blog, whereas other staffers who maintained blogs under their own names were.
Journalists at the Financial Times expressed their frustration at the new working schedule the Pearson paper imposed on them during its newsroom restructuring, requiring that journalists work at least three 7 a.m. shifts per month.
Staff at the Daily Telegraph are also in crisis mode as they make the transition to a state of the art multimedia newsroom that will involve a new media training program for all as well as Saturday and early morning shifts.
A "hollow-eyed" New York Times staffer is quoted in a Vanity Fair article by Michael Wolff complaining that the Internet has caused "everyone to do more and more for no more money."
Funny thing is, despite the additional workload that is obviously forced on journalists, every one of these papers is in the process of or has cut newsroom staff over the past year.
This may be the money-saving answer the paper's accountants are looking for, but it certainly does not bode well for journalists, be them those getting laid-off or those locked in the time-consuming yoke of new media news production.
Journalists at the Wall Street Journal are of the latter opinion, rebelling against a management that they feel is demanding too much.
Those who consider the Web a boon to journalists are correct: it's easier to do research, it's easier to communicate, and it's easier to publish articles.
The problem is that those who consider it a burden are also correct: on top of the traditional everyday functions of journalists, they now must interact with readers, create podcasts and blogs and succumb to the pressures of a 24-hour news cycle.
A union of journalists at WSJ recently declared that its journalists would no longer be doing external or internal interviews pro bono.
The Journal's reporters regularly appear on CNBC, through an agreement that the cable news station has with the paper, but are not remunerated.
For their website, WSJ staffers also conduct webcast and podcast interviews free of charge, a task against which they are also revolting.
As most things in life, the real matter here is time and money. Why are staff journalists wasting time being interviewed on television and for the Internet for free when they should be out there digging into stories and interviewing people, the job for which they are paid?
The Journal's staff is not the first to feel the burnout from the effects new media is having on their profession.
The Washington Post encountered journalist discontent when it was revealed that many staffers writing blogs for the paper were not compensated for the extra time it took to write the blog, whereas other staffers who maintained blogs under their own names were.
Journalists at the Financial Times expressed their frustration at the new working schedule the Pearson paper imposed on them during its newsroom restructuring, requiring that journalists work at least three 7 a.m. shifts per month.
Staff at the Daily Telegraph are also in crisis mode as they make the transition to a state of the art multimedia newsroom that will involve a new media training program for all as well as Saturday and early morning shifts.
A "hollow-eyed" New York Times staffer is quoted in a Vanity Fair article by Michael Wolff complaining that the Internet has caused "everyone to do more and more for no more money."
Funny thing is, despite the additional workload that is obviously forced on journalists, every one of these papers is in the process of or has cut newsroom staff over the past year.
This may be the money-saving answer the paper's accountants are looking for, but it certainly does not bode well for journalists, be them those getting laid-off or those locked in the time-consuming yoke of new media news production.
No comments:
Post a Comment