Journalism at The Speed of Bytes PDF

Journalism at the speed of bytes
Australian newspapers in the 21st century

Contents
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Researched, written and edited by: Research design: what we did . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Dr Penny O’Donnell, Department
of Media and Communications, the Issues #1: Why talk about “quality”?
University of Sydney
Dr David McKnight, Journalism and
Issues #2 Media watching: how digital are the Walkleys?
Media Research Centre, the University of
New South Wales
Jonathan Este, The Walkley Foundation
for Excellence in Journalism
The changing business of news . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
The authors would like to thank the

Issues #3: The continuing importance of newspaper journalism
following for their assistance in compiling Issues #4: Meeting the crisis?
this report:
Cathy Carey
Mary Cotter
Lauren Dixon The transition from print to multimedia journalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Suzanne Egan
Clare Fletcher Issues #5: Why can’t newspapers make digital dollars?
Karol Foyle
Sonya Gee Issues #6: Digital-first journalism
Louisa Graham
Margaret Harris Issues #7: Not just another business
Madeleine Hastie
Karl Hilzinger
Mitchell Hobbs
Jacinta Isaacs Journalists’ changing relationships with readers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Emily Jones
Jacqueline Park Issues #8: From gatekeepers to conversationalists
Christopher Warren
Amanda Wilson Issues #9: The new competition
Newspix
Fairfax Syndication
We would also like to express our Future control over professional standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
appreciation to the more than 100
journalists and editors who gave us their Issues #10: Rewarding excellence in digital journalism
time and the benefit of their insights and
experience. Thanks also to the
cartoonists and photographers whose
work has enhanced this report. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
This research project would not have
been possible without the leadership
and financial assistance of the References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Walkley Foundation for Excellence in
Journalism and we would like to express
our appreciation, especially to the
Foundation’s director Jacqueline Park,
for its support. We would also like to
acknowledge the Foundation’s assistance
in compiling this report.
This research on the future of newspapers

in Australia was supported under
Australian Research Council’s Linkage
Projects funding scheme (project
LP0990734). The views expressed
herein are those of the authors and are
not necessarily those of the Australian
Research Council.
Cover illustration by Karl Hilzinger

Design by Louise Summerton
Gadfly Media
2
Foreword
T
he faltering economics of the newsgathering industry has left journalism in a
climate of fear. A cloud of doom has descended on those who care about quality,
independent journalism as they watch the means of funding it – revenue from
advertising – move from the steady decline of recent years into freefall. The bottom
of the cliff from which it has taken this dive is not visible at this point.
A little like Europe’s financial crisis, the numbers just keep getting worse and no one has
the answer. There are various corporate and editorial strategies for breaking this fall and I
fervently hope that something cuts through. The evidence would point to the most nimble
and flexible strategy – and newsroom – as having the most chance of survival. “How do you fully
I am lucky enough to have worked in newspapers for 40 years – as a reporter, sub-editor,
and section editor and, finally, as the first female Editor of The Sydney Morning Herald in 180 integrate a newsroom
years. Since this research project was launched, I have been at the centre of one of the most that serves print,
far-reaching periods of disruptive change in Australian news media history. It was not the mobile, tablet and
usual preoccupations of newspaper editors that kept me awake at night. The day-to-day drama website while keeping
of the country’s political, business and social issues were exciting, challenging, fascinating and
exhausting to cover. But rather, it was the questions raised in this report that cost me my sleep. the journalistic
How much cost-cutting is too much? How thinly can you spread your resources without foundations strong?”
affecting the quality? What can a superb narrative non-fiction writer bring to the digital
news platform apart from an extra 5,000 words? How do you fully integrate a newsroom that
serves print, mobile, tablet and website while keeping the journalistic foundations strong?
The profound structural and cyclical change in our industry is claiming not only
hundreds of journalistic jobs, but also traditional newsroom roles. Ongoing restructuring of
the newsroom I led until recently meant I was not only the first female Editor of the Herald,
but also the last Editor with a capital E – that is, a newspaper editor who ran the whole show.
The big question, as those leading the media industry search for new strategies, structures
and revenue streams to keep audiences and advertisers engaged, is how to keep “public
defender” journalism alive. So far, digital revenues have not reproduced the profits of the
bigger, trusted, print brands, which would make this kind of journalism possible.
There has been some erosion in public trust in news media as the 24-hour news cycle has
collided with shrinking resources and the traditional view of what constitutes news versus
opinion versus advertorial is increasingly blurred by the need for profits and by newcomers
in the digital space: bloggers, social media, content farmers, etc.
Over the decades, I have been privileged to work with hundreds of intelligent, sceptical,
passionate, values-driven journalists who care about the public interest and who show no
fear or favour in their reporting. What’s at stake amid this great disruption is the ability to
train, to hire and to retain in meaningful employment the calibre of journalist who can
produce news which people in a democracy need to know. These are journalists who can
dig up the truth no matter how long it takes, no matter what threats are made against them,
who can write seriously gripping narratives that leave the pyramid news story for dead and
who can work with a video team on a series that works across print, web and tablet to take
storytelling to a new level.
That’s not an easy ask, even in the best of times. Now, with the decline of newspapers and
magazines that not long ago were raking in the dollars, you can see why media proprietors
are trying anything that holds out the merest glimmer of hope. They know they need to
keep pumping money – that lifeblood of journalism – through the heart of their business,
the newsroom. And time is short.
According to recent research by the Pew Centre, in the US, five technology companies
accounted for 68 per cent of all online advertising revenue by 2011. That did not include
Amazon and Apple, whose earnings are from transactions, downloads and devices.
It poses the question: will we soon see a tech giant like Google or Facebook buy an ailing
“legacy” media outlet and its newsroom so it can offer the complete package to the connected
consumer? Adding real journalism to their offering would be icing on their cake. But where
would the public interest protections be in that? Would they still deliver the goods for citizens
interested in scrutinising their government, business leaders and civil society?
Meanwhile, we must wait to discover which of the strategies being pursued in media in
Australia and globally will prove to be the Holy Grail – that is, a revenue model that goes
hand-in-hand with a commitment to allow journalists to continue to protect the public
interest. And, if I may also say, that keeps and promotes more women in newsrooms as a
means of attracting a wider audience, and with it more dollars. But that’s a whole other report.
Amanda Wilson
July 2012
Amanda Wilson was editor of The Sydney Morning Herald from January 2011 to June 2012
3
Introduction
F
or almost 200 years, journalism has played a central role in democratic societies,
informing the public and exercising independent scrutiny over institutions such as the
parliament, business and the justice system, as well as over the functions of government
such as education, health, welfare and beyond. More broadly, the news media has
been a forum for commentary and conversation about social and cultural issues. At its best,
journalism has been a professional practice that has done all these things ethically and fairly.
Until recently, newspapers and the print media have been the central institution through which
these functions of journalism have operated.
Today, journalism is in a deepening crisis in Australia and the rest of the industrialised world.
This crisis arises from the disruption that digital technology has dealt to the traditional business
model that has always paid for news. The sale of advertising space and the reporting of events
were once intertwined and mutually supportive activities; they are now diverging. This has hit
newspapers particularly hard as they have watched their monopoly on classified advertising for
cars, real estate and jobs disappear in the face of competition from a myriad of cheaper, more
popular alternatives on the internet. Newspapers are no longer the profitable enterprises they
once were – and it is uncertain whether they ever can be again.
These facts are widely known within the industry. Less discussed is the fact that this
breakdown of the business model has implications far beyond the industry and beyond those
who earn a living in it. The crisis for newspapers represents a growing crisis for all citizens who
directly or indirectly rely on professional news reporting to keep informed and, ultimately, to
decide how to vote.
While the growth of the internet has led to a flowering of many online publications, none
of them, including the most profitable, has the ability or the resources to provide the breadth
and depth of professional coverage of general news that newspapers currently do. And most
have yet to gain traction with the broader community – of the top 12 news-led sites in Australia,
all but one are owned by one or another of the major media organisations, including public
broadcasters (Harding-Smith 2012).
Technological advances allow news to be consumed quickly and in a variety of formats, but
there has yet to be any evidence that online news, whether consumed via computer, tablet
or mobile platforms, is generating sufficient revenue to pay for its own content. Virtually all
of what is misleadingly referred to as “online news” originates in the newsrooms of either
newspapers or public broadcasters.
More than just general reporting of public events, newspapers are the main vehicle for
what is variously known as watchdog journalism, public interest journalism and investigative
journalism. The permanent weakening of these functions, as the recent Independent Media
Inquiry noted, may cause “damage to democracy and society’s well-being” (Finkelstein 2012).
While independent observers, along with many journalists, express concerns about the
public consequences of industry uncertainty, the newspaper publishers minimise the adverse
social and political effects of the situation. They see the narrow consequences of the loss of
profitability of their industry, but not the collective problem that this failure presents to society
as a whole. Australian newspaper publishers concede that newsrooms will become smaller.
Surprisingly, they argue that “this should not be seen, automatically, as a cause for alarm or a
fall in standards” (NPA 2011). Rather, they welcome outsourcing and the conversion of a salaried
workforce to one based more on casuals and freelancers. In the future, the successful freelance
journalists will see themselves less as a journalist and more as a “product” or “service”, just as a
consultant would today, they say. While freelancers play a valuable role, the conversion of the
existing newsrooms to a casualised model is a major cause for alarm, not just for those currently
employed but for the wider public.
This is because newspapers form the living heart of the news cycle. Newspapers have the
biggest newsrooms and are able to employ journalists in specialist areas such as politics,
business, health, education, and so on. For these reasons, newspapers still set the agenda for
news in radio, television and today, in the online world. Without the current workforce of
journalists in newspapers, the ability of the wider Australian public to keep themselves informed
and play a full role in civic life will be seriously impaired.
For more than a decade, since The Age created Australia’s first newspaper website site in 1995,
newspaper journalists and readers have been asking themselves whether digital technologies
will enhance news quality or kill off print-based journalism in Australia. This report aims to
shed new light on this dilemma by systematically examining ideas about quality journalism,
gauging the views of newspaper journalists around the country and considering what readers
need to know about news standards in print and digital journalism.
Australian newspapers are not at the cutting edge of digital journalism. On the contrary, they
have been reluctant to innovate, slow to make the transition to multimedia news delivery and
uneasy about demands for greater reader engagement. There are many underlying reasons for
4
In the public eye: Newspapers are the main
fuel that feeds public debate.
Photograph by Stuart Mcevoy, © Newspix/News Ltd
this complacency: Australia’s media policy that favours existing players; extreme levels of press
ownership concentration that have created newspaper monopolies in six of the country’s eight
“More than just
major media markets (Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Darwin, Hobart and Perth) and business general reporting
strategies more geared to profit maximisation than building circulations. It is true that the of public events,
publishers are actively seeking creative new models to fund journalism based on subscriptions, newspapers are the
advertising and direct sales of products. But even if successful, there is no guarantee that these
revenue streams will be used to pay for, or retrain, the extensive workforce needed to produce
main vehicle for what
the quantity and quality of content that newspapers have offered until recent times. is known as ‘public
The question of what happens to news quality in the shift from print-based to multimedia interest journalism’.”
journalism is important for a range of reasons. Influential US newspaper analyst Philip Meyer
puts it best in saying that good, evidence-based journalism is the best defence against the
overload of “persuasive communication” – advertising, public relations and spin – found on
the internet. Not all readers demand this type of content. Nevertheless, as this study indicates,
journalists are very aware of their readers’ news preferences and of the need to provide them
with credible alternatives to what one editor described as the “commoditised noise” found
online. Moreover, they are legitimately concerned about the damage to journalism standards in
the context of newsroom cuts about which the publishers and owners are so complacent.
With these concerns in mind, our research team set out to examine perceptions of quality
journalism among senior members of the profession working in newspapers, as well as their
views on whether or not the Internet exercises a downward pressure on news standards.
Three main research questions are explored in this report:
• What do we know about quality journalism?
• What does the transition to digital journalism mean for news quality?
• What could journalists do – perhaps in league with readers – to renew and extend their
standards in this transition period?
Whether, or how, Australian journalists should be regulated in the context of the current
newspaper crisis is not in the remit of this report and is not discussed. However it should be
noted that journalistic ethics and excellence must go hand-in-hand if the craft of journalism is
to continue to enjoy the public’s trust. This will be central to the survival of the news industry.
The authors of this report believe the newspaper crisis has been seriously misjudged on two
levels: first, as a market failure arising from changing advertising trends which, it is assumed,
will rectify itself in time, and, second, as a moment of technological change that will produce
more and better news and information content in future. Neither prospect is guaranteed. This
misunderstanding represents a disservice to the readers of newspapers, those employed within
the industry, and society as a whole, all of whom have a stake in the outcome of an increasingly
difficult struggle to ensure the commercial viability of newspapers and the professional
journalism that it has traditionally fostered. Journalists are used to ringing the alarm bells about
other people and other industries. We believe it is time to hear what they have to say about the
future of their own industry and we hope this report contributes to a better understanding of
the current state of play.
5
Research design: what we did

This research project responds to a call from the Media Alliance, in 2008, for research
and debate on the extent and pace of industry change, and its implications for the future
of journalism. At that time, there was talk of crisis in the business model, and even the
imminent death of newspapers; others, however, pointed to the print media’s resilience and
to digital journalism’s potential to produce new and progressive ways of keeping the public
informed. In the face of this uncertainty, the union urged industry stakeholders to join
together in building an accurate picture of the changes underway.
The project is a joint initiative of the University of Sydney and the University of New
South Wales working in partnership with the Walkley Foundation. Funded by the Australian
Research Council and the Walkley Foundation, it was completed with the generous support
of journalists and news executives at the three major newspaper companies.
To answer the three research questions, we developed the following three data gathering
activities, using quantitative and qualitative methods:
• A n examination of the history of the Walkley Awards to identify the profession’s
concepts of quality journalism and criteria for judging it.
• I n-depth interviews with 100 newspaper journalists and news executives (70 males, 30
females) from the 12 national and metropolitan daily newspapers, on their perceptions
of the newspaper industry’s transition to digital news delivery, and the implications of
the shift for news quality. Research-driven sampling was used, following a matrix of five
key criteria: location, newspaper, seniority, gender, and availability. The interviews were
conducted in late 2010, and in accordance with university-approved ethics protocols,
including a guarantee of anonymity to allow full discussion of the issues.
• I ndustry and academic consultations, from 2009-2012, on journalists’ responses to
economic and technological change, and the possibilities for renewing their standards,
via stakeholder focus groups, seminars, conferences, news articles and a submission to
the 2011 Independent Media Inquiry.
The results of our investigation are organised into four inter-related thematic sections:
the changing business of news, the transition from print to multimedia delivery, journalists’
changing relationships with readers, and control over professional standards. In each case,
we draw on past research to first examine continuity and change in Australian journalism
before presenting the results of our own investigation. The literature on technology and the
business of news, journalism’s contribution to democracy, and professional characteristics
and skills is extensive. Yet, past studies have not systematically examined what Australian
journalists do best, including their prizewinning journalism practices, values and standards.
This is a gap that needs to be addressed because it goes to the inherent strengths of
journalism as a democratic communication practice. We argue that attention to this
neglected aspect of Australian journalism may well provide some answers to the challenges
posed by new user-pays business models, audience fragmentation and civic distrust of, and
disengagement from, news media.
Australian journalism now faces fundamental questions about its future relevance and
role. Understanding what journalists are doing to renew their standards, values and practices,
and maintain the trust of the public, will help all of us deal with the current uncertainties.
The following sections of this report show how journalists are preparing themselves for the
difficult journey ahead.
6
Issues #1 Why talk about “quality”?
There are three good reasons to talk about quality journalism. First, we need
to address the increasingly common claim that quality journalism is an
area of market failure because it costs “too much”. The connection between
journalism quality and the business success of newspapers has always
been hard to quantify. Media economists call this the “profit controversy”.
Investment in editorial is widely assumed to garner readers and add to the
value of advertising. Yet, newspapers rarely admit the quality of their product
might be compromised by disinvestment in editorial staff and resources.
Indeed, on the contrary, Australian newspaper companies have, in recent
times, justified newsroom cutbacks by arguing “production efficiencies” will
free up money to pay for more quality journalism.
Veteran newspaper publisher Jack Fuller (in Meyer 2003) reminds us
that newspaper managers are always searching for the “sweet spot” where
investment in editorial produces both business success and a well-informed
community. The best newspapers, in this view, know how to get the “profit-
service” nexus right, providing quality journalism that maintains reader
loyalty and community influence, while, at the same time, sustaining
profitability. In the online context, the same idea is expressed in terms of
“trusted brands” attracting users who will pay to access quality news content.
Defining “quality journalism”, or “quality content”, presents one difficulty
in finding the “sweet spot”. Newspaper analysts have been arguing over
Crikey’s Quality Journalism project asked
newspaper quality indicators for the past 50 years, since 1968, when news researcher John
some of Australia’s most respected journalists
Merrill first proposed the following five criteria: independence, strong opinion emphasis, to assess what they believed to be excellence
editorial focus on politics, educated and articulate staff, and appeal to opinion leaders. Philip in journalism
Meyer’s more recent list, from 2003, emphasises what readers are looking for: readability and
ease of use, localism, editorial vigour, a balanced news/advertising ratio, and a wide range
and diversity of commentary and interpretation. Nonetheless, because the links between
these indicators and financial performance remain hard to pin down, the blueprint for
finding the “sweet spot” remains elusive.
A second reason for talking about quality, a key media policy objective in the digital age, is
to be clear about its status as a public policy good. In regulatory terms, the Australian Media
and Communications’ Authority (ACMA 2011) ignores the profit-service nexus underpinning
the best newspapers and, instead, distinguishes between quality as an economic concept,
and ethical standards as a community expectation. Specifically, the underlying policy
premise is that media quality, in the form of innovation and diversity of media content and
services, will emerge from competitive market conditions; ethical standards, on the other
hand, require self- and co-regulatory arrangements to ensure citizens have access to fair and
accurate reporting of news and current affairs, a resource seen as fundamental to constructive
participation in Australian democracy. ACMA argues quality is an enduring policy concept
because convergence fosters competition, and opens up possibilities for enhanced, market-
driven media performance.
The third reason for this focus on quality is that newspaper journalists now use the term
“quality journalism” as shorthand for news content they hope readers will pay for because
it is distinctive (value adds) and meets their particular information needs and interests
(responds to readers’ news preferences). Another way of explaining this development is to
say journalists now believe the financial viability of their work depends on “monetising”
public interest journalism, that is, on getting the public interested in paying for types of
news content — specialised, investigative, complex, analytical, visually rich, interactive —
that they are used to getting for free online and on free-to-air television and radio.
For the profession, then, the issue of quality can be seen as the focus of efforts to reposition
and raise the profile of journalists’ contribution to the digital media economy. This means
redefining and raising the value of journalism work, understood as original content creation
rather than just information dissemination. It also means getting across the message that
credible, evidence-based reporting – and the newsgathering, verification, writing and editing
skills and conventions that underpin journalistic practice – is socially important (see, for
example, Crikey’s quality journalism project, www.crikey.com.au). This study documents and
analyses these efforts to reposition and redefine journalism in this way.
7
Issues #2 Media watching: how digital are the Walkleys?

At first glance it appeared to be business as usual at the 2011 Walkley Awards, the industry’s
coveted annual prizes for excellence in Australian journalism. The Gold Walkley went to Sarah
Ferguson of ABC TV’s Four Corners for her shocking and controversial expose of animal cruelty
involved in Australia’s live cattle exports, a story that halted the trade for several weeks.
Best TV news report went to the Seven Network for its excellent coverage of the floods in
Queensland. Richard Baker and Nick McKenzie at The Age scooped the award for investigative
journalism for their work on the Securency banknotes scandal while the award for sustained
coverage of an issue went to Natasha Bita of The Australian for her dogged reporting and
investigation that exposed fatal side-effects attributed to a free flu vaccine used by the
Australian government. The ABC Lateline’s Tony Jones, one of Australia’s most skilled
interviewers, won best broadcast interviewing for his interviews with Christopher Hitchens,
Malcolm Turnbull, and Chris Bowen.
In other words, mainly traditional media doing what they do best.
Or was it? Dig beneath the surface of some of these “traditional” award-winners and
you’ll find evidence that suggests Australia’s newsrooms are devoting more time and greater
resources to digital platforms and the new tools and techniques those
platforms are enabling.
Take Bita’s story, “Virus in the system”, which won an award for
sustained coverage of an issue or event. Following a strong reader
response to the story, which told of unforeseen side-effects of the Fluvax
vaccine given to children across Australia, The Australian set up a live
online forum lasting one hour, hosted by Bita, in which readers voiced
their opinions and fears about the issue. The Australian also posted scores
of readers’ letters online. All letters and readers’ posts were linked to
Facebook to allow people using that social media tool to keep up with the
debate.
The Ten Network team which won the award for best scoop of the year
for its exposure of the scandal surrounding the broadcast, over Skype,
of a sex tape involving cadets at the Australian Defence Academy, used
social media extensively to gain access to sources for their story and also
to monitor reaction and responses to the story in chat-rooms and via
Facebook and Twitter.
Meanwhile the TV current affairs Walkley was taken by the ABC’s
Golden moment: l-r: Anne Worthington, innovative Hungry Beast team. This was set up in 2009 as a weekly half-hour TV show
Sarah Ferguson and Michael Doyle of ABC’s
Four Corners took out the Gold Walkley in combining journalism with satire and “the reportage of weird”. Hungry Beast won for a
2011 for their shocking expose on the live moving report about Maree Bourke-Calliss, who suffers from “locked-in syndrome” after
cattle export trade. Photograph by Glenn she suffered a stroke when she received a knock during a netball game in the mid-1990s. As
Hunt/Courtesy of Walkley Foundation
well as a moving TV report, the Hungry Beast team provided extra resources on its website,
including a demonstration of how long it takes Maree to “speak” by blinking. They also
posted a full transcript of their interview with Maree, conducted by email questions, which
had taken her a week to blink the answers for.
Similarly, Baker and McKenzie’s series of more than 60 stories about the Securency
banknotes scandal in The Age, which won them the award for investigative journalism,
provided a series of videos online to accompany their hard-hitting series of revelations in the
newspaper.
These are just some of the ways the successful entries benefited from using new media tools
and techniques.
What about the prize specifically aimed at rewarding excellence in digital-only offerings?
The ABC’s Eleanor Bell, Ed Giles and Suzanne Smith took out the 2011 award for best online
journalism by combining extensive broadcast and online experience to bring to vivid life
the challenges facing disadvantaged children in the western Sydney suburb of Mt Druitt in
“Beating the Odds.” A series of video and text stories written and shot by the journalists are
accompanied by a photographic slideshow shot and narrated by a 14-year-old Mt Druitt
schoolboy. The different forms of storytelling are placed into context with a deep and
well-researched interactive data graphic that allows the reader to dig down into detailed
information about unemployment, family structure, crime and housing stress in Mt Druitt
and the surrounding areas.
In terms of community engagement, the project was an outstanding success, sparking an
intense and wide-ranging debate in its lengthy comments section.
The Walkley judges were particularly impressed with this last factor – the conversation that
broadened out to allow people from all around the country to share their experiences and
insights.
8
The changing business of news
T
he newspaper business in Australia is now operating in uncharted waters. More than
1,000 journalists’ jobs have been lost in the last three years, with a consequent drop in
newsroom capacity to produce the same quantity and quality of daily journalism – all
with no guarantee that the digital destination will restore jobs or newsroom resources.
The key trends that emerge in this discussion of the changing business of news include:
• T he Australian newspaper publishing market is holding its value, estimated in 2012 at
$4.9 billion, but industry forecasters predict its future substitution by online publishing.
• T he newspaper business model is the major focus of discussion because it remains
unclear who will pay for digital journalism. There are other, pre-existing structural
problems in the news industry that exacerbate the current uncertainty, including falling
circulations, increased press concentration, and tougher competition for audiences from
television, radio and Internet news and information services.
• A ustralian newspaper companies, like their international counterparts, are responding
to the current crisis by diversifying into non-newspaper businesses, restructuring news
operations, adopting user-pays digital news models, and shedding staff. These strategies
are directed to ensuring the newspaper business survives.
• D ebates continue over the quality of news produced in downsized newsrooms, with
concerns about dwindling resources for “watchdog” or public interest journalism.
The main newspaper publishers are upbeat about the future of journalism and reject
any suggestion of market intervention to assist their industry as unwarranted and “Many fear that the
unnecessary.
In 2010, when the Media Alliance published Life in the Clickstream II, Australia’s newspaper
disappearance of an
industry appeared to have weathered turmoil in the news business far better than the US, UK adequate workforce
or, closer to home, New Zealand. While the pace of change had quickened, with most major of professional
news companies extending their online news offerings, integrated newsrooms were still journalists will deliver
optional, tablets and apps were a novelty, and paywalls were an experiment in the making.
A few alarm bells had started ringing about news quality, with journalists expressing
a less informed
concerns about excessive workloads linked to print staff layoffs and increased demands for public and a devalued
online output. In fact, some 50 per cent of those surveyed at the time, said the quality of democracy.”
news reporting and journalism was worse than it was five years earlier, compared to 15 per
cent who said it had improved. Moreover, the Press Council’s 2008 State of the News Print
Media Report documented problems adversely affecting the quality of journalism, including
“churnalism” (the uncritical use of press releases as news stories), reliance on bloggers for
news stories and images, and chequebook journalism.
Nonetheless, there were also positive indicators that newsrooms had accepted online
news as “core newspaper business” and were gradually transforming themselves to meet
the challenges of digital publishing. There were even signs that digital technology was
delivering on the promise of greater diversity, with, for example, online-only publications
(BrisbaneTimes, PerthNow, WAtoday) performing strongly against the monopoly newspapers
in Brisbane and Perth.
Two years on, however, the perfect storm of disruption from digital media coupled
with the effects of the global financial crisis, has hit circulation and readership causing a
precipitous drop in the advertising revenues on which newspapers have always relied to pay
their journalists. The crisis appeared to have come to a head in June 2012 when the two
major news groups, Fairfax Media and News Ltd, announced major cuts to jobs, internal
restructures, centralisation and, in the case of Fairfax, the closure of two printing plants.
Both companies hope that their new focus on digital delivery will provide a workable
business model to support their journalism. But it is by no means clear that this will occur.
Many fear that the disappearance of an adequate workforce of professional journalists will
deliver a less informed public and a devalued democracy.
Background to the crisis

It has been widely recognised for many years that the advertising-based revenue model
for newspapers would be threatened by the spread of digital technology. As early as 1996,
media analyst Peter Morris (1996) foresaw the siphoning of classified advertising revenue to
Internet-based classified services and predicted online media would undermine Australia’s
long-standing and highly successful newspaper business model.
In global terms the most substantial recent study of newspapers was prepared by the
Working Party on the Information Economy of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD 2010). It presents a picture of dramatic decline in the newspaper
industry in Europe and the United States, a less dramatic decline in some other industrialised
countries and a flourishing of newspapers in developing countries such as India and China.
9
Figure 1: Decline in size of newspaper market, 2007 - 2009
OECD calculations based on data of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
The OECD report points out that in sheer economic value, judged by revenue, the
“The current global newspaper publishing market (US$164b) is bigger than each of the global markets
economic crisis has of recorded music (US$27b), films (US$85b) and consumer/educational book publishing
(US$112b). The growth of this global newspaper market slowed progressively from 2004
intensified structural (3.6 per cent growth) down to zero growth in 2007 with negative growth in 2008 (-5 per
problems that have cent). But like many calculations of averages, these figures conceal more than they reveal.
existed for many The decline in the US newspaper market between 2007 and 2009 was -30 per cent and in the
years.” British newspaper market -21 per cent. (By contrast, the same decline in Australia was -3 per
cent, one of the smallest in the world.)
These are the latest international figures available, but anecdotal evidence suggests
this shrinkage has continued in most English-speaking markets and it is a pattern that is
replicated across the developed world.
Australia’s newspaper publishing industry was recently valued at $4.9 billion dollars, ahead
of free-to-air television broadcasting at $4.3 billion. Yet, a 2012 report on industry futures,
A Snapshot of Australia’s Digital Future to 2050, classifies newspapers as an industry in “likely
demise” rather than “transformational”. Industry forecaster Phil Ruthven (2012), who
prepared the report for IBM, predicts newspapers will be substituted before 2050 by online
publishing because, in his view, there is a “slow but inevitable demise of the printed output”.
The current economic crisis has intensified structural problems that existed for many years.
These include declining circulation and advertising revenue, competition from traditional
media such as TV and radio as well as new media such as the internet.
Changes in advertising revenue are due to structural changes caused by digital technology
and are likely to have the most significant results. US newspaper-advertising revenues fell
by a massive -23 per cent over 2008 and 2009. In Britain, print advertising revenue fell by
more than -30 per cent in 2009 and, despite a recovery in 2010, is estimated to have fallen by
-12.8 per cent in 2011 (Barclays 2012), illustrating a general downward trend which appears
unlikely to be reversed. The OECD report identifies a “downward spiral of many forms of
printed news” and for these reasons it argued that the “economic foundations of journalism
have to be rethought”. More significantly, the report continues that “it is less obvious what
online business models, partnerships and organisations will best support cost-intensive,
public service-oriented news in the future” (OECD 2012).
The report states that while most newspapers still make profits, these are more likely to be
around an average of 5 per cent, which is less than a quarter of what they were in the 1990s.
This advertising income has fallen by nearly -48 per cent since 2006, according to the Pew
Centre’s 2011 report, State of the News Media. In the past 20 years, the number of US daily
newspapers has decreased from 1,611 in 1990 to 1,387 in 2009, a decline of -14 per cent. The
2011 report notes that employment of full-time editorial staff peaked in 2000 at 56,400 but
10
had since fallen -26.4 per cent by 2009. Taken together, the 2011 and 2012 reports show just
how difficult market conditions have been in the US, with only some faint glimmers of hope
lying in the move towards some form of partial paywall giving the prospect of increasing
subscription revenue. But just what level of editorial staff this would support is unclear.
Similarly, in Australia the “perfect storm” has prompted a decline in overall print circulation,
which has contributed to falling in advertising revenue (also partly a product of the financial
crisis). The report of the Independent Media Inquiry found that while the overall advertising
market grew at a compound annual rate of 5.7 per cent, newspaper advertising revenue grew
by only 2.7 per cent in Australia suggesting that during the past decade, newspapers have been
losing market share to other media sectors – increasingly, over the past five years or more, to
online competitors. In 2011, total newspaper advertising revenue in Australia fell by -8 per
cent, and this was -18 per cent below the figure posted in 2008 (Holgate 2012).
Like in the US and UK, this has prompted cost-cutting measures including rationalisation
of editorial and advertising sales staff.
As far back as 1995, US newspaper analyst Philip Meyer (1995) identified the dilemma
facing newspaper companies in an article, “Learning to Love Lower Profits”, in the
American Journalism Review. He identified the vicious circle of falling circulation, falling
influence, declining revenue, cost-cutting, loss of quality, falling circulation that leads to a
downward spiral in newspaper fortunes. “Under this scenario, the owners raise prices and
simultaneously try to save their way to profitability with the usual techniques: cutting news
hole, reducing staff, peeling back circulation in remote or low-income areas of less interest
to advertisers, postponing maintenance and capital improvement, holding salaries down”
(Meyer 1995). This is a picture we are seeing in Australia.
Circulation
While the immediate cause of the crisis lies in the shift of advertising revenue away from
newspapers to online alternatives, the circulation decline of newspapers has also been
steadily accelerating.
One of the best ways to understand the overall change of newspaper circulation is to
examine the sales of newspaper per head of population. Using data from the 2011 statement
from the Audit Bureau of Circulation it is possible to find per capita circulation from 1992 to
2001. In March 1992, the rate of newspapers sales per 1,000 persons was 153.4. Looking at
five-yearly intervals, we can see that in 1997 it dipped to 143.4; in 2002 to 133.3; in 2007 to
120.9 and in 2011 to 102.5. In simple terms, average newspaper sales have dropped -23 per
cent since 2002 (Este 2012). Another set of figures shows that, by contrast with the US and
Britain, Australian newspaper circulation are falling less dramatically. Between 2005 and 2009
Australian newspaper sales dropped -4 per cent compared to -13 per cent in the US and
-16 per cent in Britain (Shoebridge 2011).
Figure 2: Newspaper sales – the real picture
Source: ABC circulation data, ABS population data, MEAA analysis
11
Issue #3 The continuing importance of newspaper journalism

Why focus on newspaper journalism? It may seem strange to direct particular attention to
newspapers at a time when the print editions of some of Australia’s leading mastheads are in danger
of being phased out. Here are three reasons. First, newspapers offer a unique and productive vantage
point from which to analyse technological change in the news media. British journalism researchers
Peter Cole and Tony Harcup (2011) argue newspapers are “driving convergence” more than any other
media sector, because they are “adopting other forms of publishing – web, audio, video”. We agree.
Second, it is important to remember that newspapers still enjoy an independent status not
shared by other media platforms. The 2010 OECD report notes “newspapers play a vital role in
upholding transparency, democracy and freedom of expression, mainly because of their editorial
independence from governmental or other bodies”. Headline-grabbing stories that demonstrate
newspapers’ capacity to deter corruption and hold governments to account include the AWB
oil-for-wheat scandal, the AFP’s wrongful arrest of Dr Haneef, and the ongoing Reserve Bank-
Securency bribery scandal.
The third reason to focus on newspapers is that, along with the Australian Broadcasting
Corporation, they employ the biggest numbers of professional journalists. There is a real risk that
Australian society will lose its most talented and experienced journalists and editors as a result of
the current economic crisis in newspapers. The implications of this loss need more attention.
The US Federal Communications Commission has analysed the effects of of newspaper closures
on other news and information services (FCC 2011). While generally enthusiastic about the
internet’s capacity to deliver greater news diversity, choice and citizen access, the FCC pointed to
two “serious problems”: first, the growing shortage of “accountability” or public interest reporting,
and, second, the inability of local news start-ups to find viable ways of funding original content
creation. The FCC found newspapers were the primary suppliers of public interest journalism to
the entire US media ecosystem, so their demise affected the rest of the information food chain, as
well as readers (FCC 2011).
Interestingly, the FCC found little evidence that commercial media markets – including paywall
experiments – would evolve quickly enough to fill the gaps in public interest journalism. It
named five prominent US new media advocates (Jeff Jarvis, Clay Shirky, Hal Varian, Esther Dyson
and John Hood) who had conceded the Internet would not be able to resolve this problem. The
FCC worried aloud that less press scrutiny would likely mean more corruption, more wasteful
government spending, and poorer information to citizens; for the FCC, this added up to a
worrying “power-shift” in favour of the powerful (FCC 2011).
In Australia, as elsewhere, there are intense and legitimate debates about newspaper performance,
media power, and the accountability of journalists. Questions about who watches the watchdogs are
becoming more insistent. Newspaper historian Michael Schudson (2008) says democracies need an
unlovable press. Fascination and dislike go hand in hand, according to Peter Cole and Tony Harcup
(2011). They say, “there is no correlation between the popularity of newspapers and the extent to
which they are criticised and abused. It is the ultimate love-hate relationship”.
Falling revenue
While Australian newspapers widely expected a small revival in 2011, the actual results saw
the revenue situation worsening. In the first half of 2011 total print advertising was $1648
million, -7.6 per cent lower than for the corresponding period a year earlier, reducing print
share of the overall advertising market by -2.2 per cent (Finkelstein 2012). By contrast TV
advertising increased by 0.3 per cent and radio by 2.4 per cent.
Overall, newspapers saw a drop of -$136 million in their advertising revenue. By contrast,
internet advertising grew by $191 million (18 per cent) and one estimate saw an overall print
downturn of between -2 and -4 per cent (Finkelstein 2012). In the first seven months of 2011
the newspaper ad market shrank -6.6 per cent according to the media information company
SMI (Shoebridge 2011). Comparing the month of February 2012 to the previous February,
there was a drop of -18 per cent in advertising revenue across all metropolitan newspapers
(The Australian, 2012).
The industry observer Goldman Sachs sees a continuing drift of advertising away from
traditional media such as print. This will be driven by the “relentless march of technology”
and the rise of social media and fragmentation, it says (Goldman Sachs 2012). Of
technological change, the report notes: “Over the past 10 years, the growth in online has
been nothing short of phenomenal. Online advertising has grown from virtually zero in 2000
to c.21 per cent of the total ad market in 2011 as a result of the share gains in online display,
online classifieds, and search.” The next stage of this will see a major increase in advertising
going to social and online media. In stark contrast to this growth is the performance of print
publications which in 1996 captured 56 per cent of advertising, this quantum falling to
34 per cent of the market by 2011 by Goldman Sachs’ reckoning.
12
Declining share price
Despite efforts made by the management of newspaper companies to restructure their
operations to reflect the changing nature of the news business, the gloomy outlook for the
sector is reflected in poor performance on the stock exchange.
Since the Fairfax newspaper group merged with Rural Press in 2007 to form Fairfax Media, the
fortunes of the company have steadily declined. In June 2012 the company’s share price hit new
lows, reaching 54 cents compared with a high of more than $5 in 2007. This represents a loss of
about -90 per cent since the merger.
Fairfax’s competitors have hardly fared better. In the past five years, APN’s shares have fallen
in value from $5.75 to 57 cents in July 2012, while Seven West Media shares have fallen from
more than $15 to a 20-year low of $1.53 in July 2012. News Corp’s listing on the Australian
Stock Exchange has fallen from more than $27 to around $21, rallying in the past year to reflect
the overall strong position of the global entertainment business.
Declining editorial staff numbers

The Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (the trade union that represents journalists in Australia)
has estimated that overall the industry has lost more than 1,000 full-time journalists’ jobs in the
past three years. With the projected job losses at Fairfax and News, this would bring the decline in
the number of journalists to well over 1,500. The Independent Media Inquiry Report (Finkelstein
2012) emphasised the potential impact of this cost-cutting strategy thus: “the Inquiry is of the
view that some caution needs to be exercised about the ability of newspapers to maintain a
substantial commitment of resources to investigative and public interest journalism.”
What we know about the business of digital journalism

There is evidence that, for some newspapers at least, digital news delivery is beginning at least
to pay for itself. The Guardian, in April 2012, reported claims by the Daily Mail and General
Trust that its flagship website, dailymail.co.uk would generate digital revenue of £25 million in
2011/2012 and break even (Sweney 2012). However the company did not reveal how much of the
costs of generating the vast amounts of online content are being borne by the print newspaper.
Diversified business models are increasingly being adopted because it is generally agreed that
digital advertising revenues will not, in the foreseeable future, replace income lost by falling print
advertising revenue. The Pew Foundation’s 2012 State of the US News Media report found that an
increasing number of newspapers are moving to join those that already offer some kind of digital
subscription. This partly responds to the success of the New York Time’s “metered model”, which
has gained 390,000 subscribers with little loss of its online audience. But this trend also responds
to the fact that many newspapers have lost their “normal” advertising income.
Giving evidence to the UK’s Leveson Inquiry in July 2012, analyst Claire Enders said even
the most successful newspaper websites had not found the “magic bullet” that enabled them to
make enough digital dollars to pay for their journalism. The Mail Online, which is the world’s
most popular news website with more than 90 million unique browsers per month, made £16 “Digital advertising
million in 2011 while The Daily Mail, its print counterpart, made more than £608 million.
Meanwhile The Guardian generated £45.7 million digital revenues, including just £14 million
revenue will not,
in digital advertising (the lion’s share of the revenue being transactional). This, said Enders, was in the foreseeable
a 10th of what the Guardian group newspapers made from their print editions. future, replace income
The Pew Research Centre Report on digital journalism (Rosentiel 2012) found that for every lost to falling print
US$1 earned in digital revenue, newspapers are losing US$7 in print revenues. This figure was
reached after close collaboration with 38 newspapers from six different US news companies.
advertising revenue.”
Interviews were conducted with a “high degree of candour” the report said.
The same level of candour is not in evidence in Australia, where newspaper publishers
minimised their problems when they gave evidence to the Finkelstein inquiry into the media in
2011. Publishers’ representatives rejected in principle any form of market intervention to assist
their industry. The inquiry took them at their word and noted that the publishers “confidently
presented a positive assessment of their future prospects”. The inquiry’s report saw no reason to
take action immediately, but said the question of government assistance to newspapers ought
to be the subject of a future reference to the Productivity Commission (Finkelstein 2012). Any
inquiry should not be limited to an analysis of the industry, it said, but should also take account
of the principle of media independence and the prevention of partiality or censorship.
Witnesses to the Finkelstein Inquiry, including the Media Alliance, strongly urged future
governments to consider a range of policy options, many of which have also been canvassed
in comparable newspaper markets in OECD countries as detailed in the OECD report
already cited. These included support for local news organisations outside the capital
cities such as community radio stations; strengthening the news capacity of the ABC;
supporting tax incentives for private or philanthropic investment in news; specific subsidies
to foster investigative journalism; and the creation of a centre to sponsor the professional
development of journalists.
13
Issue #4 Meeting the crisis?

The differing structures of Australia’s two largest newspaper publishers, Fairfax Media and
News Limited, will affect their ability to meet the crisis. Fairfax is an Australian-based
company and relies largely on revenues from its local businesses, meaning it is more
vulnerable to local market pressures. On the other hand, News Limited’s membership
of a large global “family” may afford it some degree of protection, although the recent
announcement that News Corporation will split into two separate companies, with TV and
films in one and publishing in another may affect this (we have yet to see how the split
will affect Australian assets).
But both companies have adopted cost cutting as their immediate response. Fairfax
Media has announced plans to cut 1,900 jobs over three years (of which an estimated 380
will be journalists’ jobs), as well as closing print operations. News Limited has been more
secretive but its own newspapers speculate that between 1,000 and 1,500 jobs will go, with
400 to 500 coming from the editorial side.
Over the past few years, both companies have steadily reduced their editorial staff.
Fairfax has reduced the number of editorial staff by an estimated 50 per cent, the bulk
of which has been in sub-editing and other production roles as well. Sub-editing duties
have been outsourced to Pagemasters, a company owned by AAP, which is itself owned
by a consortium of publishers including Fairfax and News Ltd. News Limited has quietly
reduced staff numbers across the board, partly through redundancy and partly through
natural attrition. The company has centralised the sub-editing and production of its
mastheads, establishing so-called “sub-hubs” on a state-by-state basis, a move that has been
criticised as it devalues specialist and local knowledge.
In both companies there has also been increased syndication of copy across group
mastheads. The latest plans also include the introduction of centralised “story-based”
commissioning of news to publish across its papers, websites and mobile devices such as
tablets and smartphones.
The key strategy both companies will adopt in order to monetise their content is a
move to a user-pays business model which will rely on a paywall around their news sites
to which readers will pay a subscription to access via websites, smartphones and tablets.
Both companies appear to be adopting a “soft” paywall, which will be monetised by selling
those “engaged readers” (ie: those people willing to pay for content) to advertisers. This
strategy represents a major reversal for Fairfax Media.
The problem for all the major newspaper groups, in Australia and elsewhere, is that the
growth of new digital readers needs to be huge to outweigh the continual loss of print
readers. Even newspaper publishers estimate that if print readers are worth $1 per head
to publishers, digital readers are worth 10 cents or less (NPA 2011). But a huge growth in
digital readers does not appear to be happening.
Print sector failure a problem for democracy

One of the ongoing problems for journalists and readers of newspapers in Australia is
that newspaper publishers see their industry’s problems as purely commercial issues
that affect no one else. Yet the industry’s problems have ramifications far wider than the
industry. Newspapers (or rather the journalistic function of their professional staff) play
an important role in society and in the democratic system. The publishers themselves
regularly acknowledge this when they promote the “watchdog” role of newspapers as a
form of accountability for governments. But when their commercial ability to fund this
watchdog role is impaired the publishers do not acknowledge that this has social and
political consequences, and that the wider public has a legitimate interest in the fate of
journalism and the news media in which it operates. Given the problems of the economic
viability of newspapers in recent times, such issues can only become more pressing.
In summary, the outlook is uncertain. Industry analyses of the newspaper crisis in
Australia and abroad have captured the major pressures threatening the economic viability
of newspapers, but leave us with more questions than answers about the prospects of
digital technologies either enhancing news quality or sustaining print-based journalism
into the future. In the sections that follow, we take a much closer look at the ways
newspaper journalists are making the transition from print-based to digital newsrooms and
what they have to say about its impact on news quality. This is the most systematic and in-
depth account of change in Australian newspaper journalism undertaken to date.
14
The transition from print
to multimedia journalism
C
an newspaper journalism adapt to the digital age? That’s the question driving this
section of the report. It represents a systematic effort to examine the changing
nature of newspaper journalism at a critical time. The interview data discussed here
was gathered and analysed before Fairfax Media and News Limited announced major
company restructures in June 2012, changes that will no doubt alter the picture of industry
that emerges here.
Nonetheless, the accelerating pace of change in newspapers has been evident for the past
three years and our study captures an important moment in the industry’s transition from
print to multimedia news delivery.
Technology and change in journalism

Newspapers in Australia have been adapting to digital technologies for the past two decades, and
past research tells us that this change process has stirred fear and uncertainty amongst journalists
as well as excitement about the future.
Internet researcher An Nguyen (2008) argues online news in Australia has developed in two
stages: the take-off years from 1995-1996, when news media rushed to establish an online
presence, and a second, “fear-driven” developmental stage from 2005-2006, prompted by the
take-off of wireless technologies and the upsurge in user-generated news, principally blogging.
In the second stage, the metro dailies started adding original content, filing stories online before
print, and building communities for their online versions.
Suellen Tapsall (2001) studied the pressures affecting journalists’ working lives in the late
1990s, and found evidence journalists were increasingly desk-bound and producing “space-filling
news”. The internet was seen as an “invaluable” journalistic tool, but added to already over-
stretched workloads. Optimistic views of digital technologies anticipated better news coverage,
diversity and access, while the pessimists worried about loss of journalistic craft and standards,
for example, from the recycling of print content in online sites. Tapsall concluded journalists
were feeling somewhat powerless to maintain news quality in the face of technological change
and media commercialisation.
The Media Alliance’s Future of Journalism project (2008, 2010) attempted to gauge the
newsgathering and reporting opportunities opened up by digital technologies, while at the same
time analysing the threats posed to journalists’ jobs and skills by the changing business of news,
particularly in newspapers. This research showed media companies across Australia, and overseas,
cutting back on newsroom resources as they struggled to adapt – financially, structurally or
culturally – to a digital world, with consequent low staff morale. It also reported efforts to renew
Australian journalism by investigating new storytelling and reader engagement techniques, as
well as ideas about what audiences want from news.
Snapshots of a crisis: Media Alliance Life in

the Clickstream reports identified the perfect
storm affecting the news media
15
Reinventing journalism is an increasingly strong research theme. Margaret Simons (2011)

targets three priorities: conversation, interactivity, and enabling the audience. “The core of the
job – finding things out and communicating them clearly – remains”, she says, “Accuracy and
integrity remain, and credibility remains. But there are new things as well” (Simons 2011). She
argues journalists must collaborate with audiences to improve news reporting, extend journalistic
capacity, and save journalism – a vital resource for a functioning democracy, an empowered
population and community connectedness.
The four themes that emerge here are first, the redefinition of daily journalism in the
converged newsroom; second, the connection between reconfiguration of revenue streams and
newsroom structures; third, the challenges of change management and, fourth, the importance
of innovation in journalism practice. Each of these themes is now examined in further detail,
drawing on insights gained from talking to newspaper journalists across Australia.
As part of the research for this report, the authors conducted face-to-face interviews with
100 senior journalists and editorial executives at newspapers in eight different cities around
Australia between September and November 2010. The interviews combined close-ended with
open-ended questions. The data from the close-ended questions was quantified; the interviews
were transcribed and thematically analysed using NVivo, a quantitative software tool. We
provide results in two forms: statistical data that shows trends in the sample’s responses, and
“Optimistic views qualitative comments that add meaning to the statistics, and enable the voices of newspaper
anticipated better journalists to be heard.
Journalists from all 12 national and metro daily newspapers participated (The Advertiser,
news coverage, The Age, The Australian, Australian Financial Review, The Canberra Times, The Courier-Mail, The
pessimists worried Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun, The Mercury, NT News, The Sydney Morning Herald, and The West
about the loss of Australian). We asked them to speak as members of the profession, rather than employees of
journalistic craft and their company. Where random sampling provides data that is representative of all groups in a
target population, the research-driven or convenience sampling adopted in this project is used
standards.” to gather data on a specific group of people (newspaper journalists) for the purposes of gauging
what they think (see Forde 2005 for similar approach). Our results therefore reflect the views
of the sample; to claim that they reflect the views of all Australian journalists more generally
would be a misrepresentation of the data.
Our survey sample was made up of 61 journalists and 39 editorial executives. We used four
different sets of questions to build an accurate picture of what the transition from print to
multimedia delivery means for newsrooms. We asked journalists and editorial executives how
they spend their working days. We also asked them about newsroom business models and
structures. We specifically asked the editorial executives about the priorities and challenges of
change management while the journalists were asked about the new tools and techniques of
journalism practice, including training and/or job reclassifications.
Redefining daily journalism

There is no doubt that the production of news is being redefined, forcing life-long print
journalists to master new skills, develop more flexible and agile work practices, and adapt to
the demands of Web and mobile devices.
Two-thirds (65 per cent) of the 61 journalists and 39 editorial executives we spoke to were
veterans of the craft, having worked in the industry for two decades or more. Roughly half (48
per cent) of them had worked at the same newspaper for 10 or more years, while one in five
(19 per cent) had been at the same newspaper for 20 or more years. Most (93 per cent) were
working full-time; those working part-time were all women (7 per cent).
Few were looking to change occupations, despite mounting uncertainties about print
delivery. One quarter (24 per cent) of respondents said they expect to work in journalism until
retirement, half of them said they anticipated working 10 or more years, and only one-fifth
(18 per cent) stated a lesser period.
We asked our respondents how they spent their working days. Two-thirds (69 per cent) of
respondents said they spent at least part of their day online, with one in five (21 per cent)
spending over half of the working day on digital news. One in ten (13 per cent) worked
exclusively online. Conversely, four out of five (79 per cent) respondents said they were
spending more than half of the working day on the printed newspapers, including one-third
of the sample (31 per cent) that said they worked exclusively on the print editions.
There were widespread concerns that competing demands of print and online are adversely
affecting the product, with just under two-thirds (62 per cent) of the 100 respondents
participating in the survey describing the current quality of Australian printed newspaper
journalism as poor (28 per cent) or average (34 per cent), mainly because of resource and staff
shortages. Roughly the same number (67 per cent) described the quality of internet journalism
as poor (29 per cent) or average (38 per cent), but for two different reasons: the “dumbing
down” of news values and “content dumping” (that is, the practice of recycling stories from
the print editions to the newspaper websites).
16
Figure 3: Quality of newspaper journalism
Only (14 per cent) respondents declared their full confidence in online journalism,
highlighting the advantages of immediacy and saying the news quality is excellent. Slightly
more (17 per cent) were reluctant to pass judgment, saying digital journalism has yet to
establish itself in Australia.
Figure 4: Quality of online journalism
At the same time, there was considerably more enthusiasm for news delivered on mobile
devices, particularly tablets. One-third (34 per cent) of respondents described the tablet as a
“game-changer” because it is journalist-friendly (adaptable to known news cycles, formats
and values), reader-friendly (adaptable to known consumer preferences and habits) and
financially viable because the content is seen to be more readily monetised.
Reconfiguring revenues streams and structures

The most pressing concern identified in the interviews was the need to find a viable new
business model for journalism. Nearly nine out of 10 respondents (87 per cent) said it was
the “make-or-break” issue in the light of the rapidly falling advertising revenue from print
products, which has not been replaced by digital revenue, even after the development of paid
news apps for tablet and mobile devices.
While there was some talk of “re-engineering the old business model for the Internet”,
and of “finding new ways to give advertisers value for money”, user-pays news was the most
commonly identified new revenue earner. As one journalist put it, “Getting people to pay for
online is the crux of the issue,” while another described paywalls as “the debate we have to
have”. A third journalist said: “It’s readers or advertisers – the profession’s survival depends
on it.”
17
Issue #5 Why can’t newspapers make digital dollars?

Nearly all newspapers are now in the process of trying to transition from print to digital, but
few are making substantial profits from their digital business. All of this was the subject of
a major report by the Columbia Journalism School, The Story So Far: What We Know about
the Business of Digital Journalism (Grueskin 2011). The report reviewed and analysed a large
number of independent studies into the business side of journalism.
For much of the past 10 years, media businesses have concentrated
on building large audiences for their news websites, often through
techniques such as “search engine optimisation” (a method of
embedding popular search terms on headlines to ensure casual
browsers are sent to one’s news site). Many news organisations,
including Fairfax Media, rightly point out that they have huge online
audiences. The website for The Sydney Morning Herald (smh.com.au)
is the most popular newspaper website in Australia, yet it is clear that
the advertising revenue from this site cannot replace the revenue
from the print editions of the newspaper. The same is true in the US,
according to The Story So Far. The New York Times has a vast online
audience, but the print edition, mainly reliant on ads, still accounts
for 80 per cent of The Times’ revenue.
So why is it so hard to make money from digital news?
The short answer is that advertisers want more than just large
audiences, the report says. We have always known that advertisers also
focused on the demographics of the audiences, not just the overall
audience number, but also the “quality” of that audience. One study
of the Los Angeles Times website (latimes.com) showed it had huge
audiences but also that each user saw only an average of six pages in
a month. A 2010 Pew Centre study quoted in the report, said that
the average visitor spends only three minutes and four seconds per
session on a news site. Even at top news sites, the average user visited
only a few times per month. The stark difference with newspapers
is that about half of traditional readers spend 30 minutes reading a
newspaper while less-involved readers spend at least 15 minutes.
The issue for advertisers and media businesses is the degree of
engagement of audiences. One study quoted in The Story So Far
shows that for an average small-to-medium city newspaper there are
four kinds of digital visitors: “fans” who visit twice a week or more,
“regulars” who visit once or twice; “occassionals” who drop in two
or three times a month and “fly-bys” who come once a month.
This latter category, the least involved, accounts for 75 per cent of
the visits. However, upon deeper analysis, it appears that “fans” are
responsible for more than 55 per cent of the page views of the site.
The logic of all this is that digital newspapers need to concentrate on
building deeply engaged not mass audiences. In this task, the editorial
side of newspapers comes into play, since “fans” are engaged by
Quality at a price: New York’s revered “Grey
particular kinds of content.
Lady” has introduced a metered paywall to
enable it to charge for some content. A study of the The Dallas Morning News, cited in the Columbia University report, reveals
something else. The visits to the site (40 million page views, generated by 5 million visitors)
are fairly typical. While news pages get the most traffic, the visitors’ stay is very brief and
not engaged. Sports pages get more engaged readers. One particular sports site, High School
GameTime, gets much more engagement. It covers the activities and the players at 200 high
schools in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Its visitors were five times more engaged than those
coming to the news section of the paper. The Dallas Morning News has been able to boost
revenue by doing a deal with a cable TV channel and selling a mobile app to many fans. The
key to such success, the site’s editor said, is to focus on something which readers care about
deeply and which no other news provider does as well. This could well be the motto for all
attempts to monetise aspects of news.
18
Three hurdles to making the shift to user-pays online news emerged: first, company “Tablet subscriptions
reluctance to take “bold action” on user-pays online news while the print editions are still
making money (although this changed in June 2012 when Fairfax announced it was taking
were seen as the
all its newspapers behind paywalls); second, reader resistance to paying for what is now freely most consumer-
available, and, third, concerns about producing news worth paying for without additional friendly method of
staff/resources. Technology offered answers for some, with tablet subscriptions seen as the user-pays news.”
most consumer-friendly method of user-pays news. For others, the shift to user-pays means
journalists will have to prove their relevance in the digital age, or as one journalist said, “We
have to convince people that what we produce has value”.
Only 10 per cent of respondents responded to the question about a new business model by
raising issues other than creating new revenue streams, such as developing more innovative
forms of digital journalism, more efficient work methods or better strategies for marketing
the news. For one of these respondents the top priority is getting young people interested in
journalism; another spoke of the need to foster audiences. Two respondents pointed out that
the business model is constantly changing and newspapers have multiple revenue sources
beyond advertising. For another, all the talk of business models was “a distraction” from the
core task of producing good journalism.
Newsroom structure
Uncertainties about revenue express themselves most clearly in the competing and often
inconsistent editorial priorities of the print and online editions of the same newspaper.
At the time of the survey, Fairfax Media’s newspapers were just moving to an integrated
editorial structure whereas The West Australian and most of the News Limited mastheads had
already done so.
For a quarter (25 per cent) of respondents, separate editorial control of the website and the
newspaper was confusing, counterproductive or undermined the brand, while for another
quarter (26 per cent), the mechanics of editorial integration across the digital, print and
mobile platforms were still in the process of being worked out, with different degrees of
success in restructuring work flows and responsibilities, convincing journalists to re-version
stories, or achieving product consistency across all platforms.
Figure 5: Who controls the website?
Adelaide-first
The Advertiser offers the most interesting example of a converging newsroom. Fifteen years
ago, Peter Morris (1996), an Australian technology writer for the West Australian, predicted
that News Limited would outpace Fairfax and drive the transition to multiplatform
newsrooms, as it had the most to gain from digital news delivery systems. What Morris
didn’t foresee was that News Limited’s newsroom revolution would get underway not in the
major media markets of Melbourne or Sydney but in the one-newspaper town of Adelaide,
where Rupert Murdoch got his start as a proprietor.
For the past three years, the Advertiser has been moving to a broadcast newsroom model,
flattening out news management, abolishing the roles of chief-of-staff and section editors,
and creating new thematic editorial teams that deliver content to four platforms: the
newspaper, website, iPad edition and email newsletter. The newsroom looks almost the same
as before except that the conference desk has moved to the centre of the newsroom, next to
a high-tech interactive whiteboard used to monitor the status of the days’ big stories.
19
Figure 6: The Advertiser’s new newsroom structure
Source: Adelaide Advertiser
News Limited clearly thinks the experiment is producing excellent results: The Advertiser won
the Chairman’s prize at the 2010 News Awards. The company’s then CEO, John Hartigan
(2010), said The Advertiser had “overhauled decades-old work practices and changed deeply-
embedded parts of editorial culture in an exceptional way”. Significantly, new workflows
have meant new work practices and journalists now “have much more responsibility for
how their story progresses throughout its lifecycle on each different platform” (MediaPlanet
2011). Inevitably, this means more time spent on the job and a faster pace of work. Another
concern is whether stories produced by the same journalist working across the four platforms
make the best use of each medium, or tend to uniformity. More importantly, whether readers
notice, or even care about, the changes to news content that result from such newsroom
restructuring is another question altogether. The changing relationship between journalists
and readers is taken up further on, in the next section this report.
Change management priorities and challenges

Falling revenues from traditional sources appears to be the main driver of newsroom change,
according to the 39 editorial executives we interviewed. Almost two-thirds (62 per cent) of
these respondents said their main challenge was getting the job done with tighter resources
and fewer staff, including keeping up with technology, implementing newsroom restructure,
and meeting the demands of constant publishing. More than half (56 per cent) said it was
proving difficult to change the mindset of their staff, and keep them motivated.
Figure 7: Newsrooms in transition
“I think the biggest challenge for anyone managing journalists into the future,” said
one editor, “is to direct them, herd them like cats, towards an environment where they are
thinking about what they will file for their website as much as what they will file for the
newspaper.”
20
Another editor said, “It’s just the mind-set really…some people are a bit nervous about
doing the video stuff because they say they’ve got a great head for radio and not for video,
but, largely, people see it as an opportunity to do something new and different.”
Only one in five (18 per cent) of the editorial executives mentioned the importance of
encouraging staff to embrace multimedia journalism. “We have to change the cultural fixation
with print,” said one editor. “It’s ‘I work across platforms’ now, not ‘I work for the paper’”.
Figure 8: A new mindset for journalists
Restructuring workflows and responsibilities is the main step that editorial executives are “Printed copy goes
taking or say needs to be taken in order to change newsroom culture. Twenty-two of the 39
editorial executives talked about this as a priority.
past at least four
“The whole newsroom has been restructured in order to be able to respond quickly and get pairs of eyes before
material up online in a very short timeframe,” said one editor. “People start here now very it gets released –
early in the morning compared to when the normal newsroom would start, and the structure with online it might
is more like a television station than a traditional newsroom … it’s an attempt to flatten the
structure of management and make people respond and get things done more quickly.”
be one.”
Just over half (56 per cent) of the editorial executives said they were taking specific
measures to ensure the quality of the newspaper’s website content, with one-third (33 per
cent) identifying the need to moderate readers’ comments as a key measure, either to prevent
publication of racist and inflammatory material, or, more proactively, in the words of one
editor, to “raise the level of that side of the content”.
Keeping the focus on fact-checking and accuracy was another important measure. While
several editorial executives insisted online news standards were the same as for print, “you
just have to do it a bit quicker, that’s all”, there were numerous concerns that the speed of
online publishing was itself the main problem for news quality: “I think there’s a sense that
if you’re wrong online, you’re not wrong for long,” said one editor, “and I don’t think that is
a good attitude.” Another editor said: “The printed copy goes past at least four pairs of eyes
before it gets released; with online, it might be one.”
Getting “proper resources” was a third measure, with several editorial executives expressing
concern that small teams of young, less-experienced journalists are working on the online
sites when “a wider pool” is needed: “The more the traditional journalists can change and
embrace and adapt to the new medium,” said one editorial executive, “the better it will
be for the quality of journalism online”. Another editor said young, inexperienced digital
journalists would benefit from “exposure to, mentoring from, and training by, colleagues
working on the print editions” – because they are “some of the best journalists in Australia”.
A third editor said: “You need training and experience, intelligence and effort.”
Interestingly, the 2012 Fairfax Media restructure directly addressed this concern,
announcing a shift to a digital-first editorial model for all the mastheads, and promoting
the editor of smh.com.au, Darren Goodsir, into the position of news director for The Sydney
Morning Herald and deputy to the new editor-in-chief, Sean Aylmer.
In our survey, half (51 per cent) of the editorial executives admitted their staff were not
receiving enough training in digital journalism, with some (20 per cent) offering ad hoc
audio/video training on an as-needed basis, even fewer (10 per cent) providing social media
training, and others (20 per cent), meeting digital skills shortages by hiring new staff.
21
When asked about the preferred skills and attributes of recruits, almost half (46 per cent)
of the editorial executives nominated digital media skills as the top priority. Other desirable
skills were news sense (36 per cent), writing skills (28 per cent) and personal qualities such as
initiative, energy and enthusiasm; courage and persistence; maturity, and curiosity. Personal
qualities got more attention than qualifications, with only 21 per cent of respondents
interested in new staff holding tertiary degrees.
Figure 9: What editors want
New tools and techniques of journalism practice

Thirty-seven of the 61 journalists we interviewed said they were using new media tools,
including blogs, social media and Twitter, and 23 of these journalists had received
some minimal type of digital journalism training, most commonly in the form of an
introduction to the in-house content management system (CMS).
There were few vigorous complaints about use of these tools, or the broader shift to
multimedia journalism, mainly because only a small number (13) of the journalists said
their use meant additional duties or job reclassification. For the most part, journalists were
more frustrated by expectations that they would produce more stories, reversioned for
various platforms, without any proper training.
Three quarters (47) of these respondents identified specific training needs. The majority
(38) of the journalists interviewed expressed interest in the union’s digital journalism
training program as an alternative means of upgrading skills. There was a wide range of
views about the most urgent training needs.
One priority is learning how to adapt traditional professional skills to meet the demands
of digital platforms. Journalists want to know more about how media law and journalistic
ethics relate to news content published online (particularly in relation to moderating
readers’ comments and other types of user-generated content) as well as digital story-
telling techniques or, as one journalist said, “understanding how a news story from the
paper can be told online”. Interestingly, several journalists called for training in how to
“make difficult judgments under pressure”, “integrate social media with print” and identify
“what people want”.
“I don’t know if we’re serving the people, or giving people what they want,” said one
journalist. “It just goes into the ether … you can get some statistics about click-through on
stories, but according to those people are only interested in lesbian vampire killers – and
I’m not sure that’s a true reflection of what people want … although we do manage to link
‘lesbian’ and ‘vampire’ and ‘killer’ to many stories.”
A second group of respondents wants to learn audio and video skills – how to record
interviews and present pieces to camera – in order to produce multimedia packages for
publication on different platforms. As one journalist said, “high production values are
important” in digital media, and journalists run the risk of becoming “prolific producers of
fairly low-quality content” unless they get proper equipment and training.
A third group of journalists is eager to “get the most out of digital media” by learning
either new content techniques – social media, blogging and data-mining – or new
technical skills, such as interactive graphics, tablet applications, RSS feeds or hyperlinks
and even ways to self-promote and attract followers/friends.
22
Issue #6 Digital-first journalism
We know what newspaper journalism looks like. What will journalism in purely digital
publications look like?
Some observers are worried that editorial decisions – what to publish? what angle to
take? —will be dependent on commercial criteria determined largely by analysis of hits and
impressions. Professional news judgment will play no role. These fears were fuelled by the
leaking last year of an internal document from AOL, the giant internet company, spelling
out guidelines for its editors. Significantly, the leak occurred just before AOL bought the
The Huffington Post, one of the most successful online publications (it expected to make
$10m in 2011).
The leak was of a 57 page PowerPoint presentation called “The AOL Way” which is
still available on the Business Insider website. The presentation decreed an integration of
advertising and editorial staff. As well, it urged editors to decide what to publish based on
four consideration: the traffic potential, revenue potential, edit quality, and turnaround
time, according to Business Insider. Page 28 of the presentation specified that the “content
creators” should be “mindful of the bottom line”. For example, an article for which a
freelancer is paid $50 must be highly likely to bring in at least $100 in revenue, judged by
“page views” and “cost per thousand” page impressions.
The Colombia Journalism School report on the business of digital journalism, The
Story So Far, gives an example of an article for which a freelancer is paid $100 and which
therefore needs $200 in ad revenue. The story must be guaranteed to generate around
22,222 page impressions. The report also points out that at cnnmoney.com, all staff have
access to page-view and traffic data. The staff gets daily emails listing the top 50 stories by
section.
All of this has consequences. When it became possible to analyse TV ratings minute-by-
minute, it became obvious that when a current affairs show interviewed a politician there
was a sudden drop in the number of viewers. Now it has become possible through data
analytics to do a similar analysis of stories for digital news media.
There is a further complication. The new saviour of newspapers and digital news sites
is widely seen to be paywalls. Readers who pay a subscription can avoid the paywalls to
get access to articles. But the content behind the paywalls is also scrutinised using these
data analytics. So if a reader subscribed to The Sydney Morning Herald, assuming this meant
delivery of a certain kind of content, they could find that the content changed rapidly and
went down market, much the same as the way in which the content of the Herald websites
differs markedly from that of the printed newspaper.
Cartoon by Andrew Weldon
23
“It’s all very well to The wide range of responses presented here, across all four themes, indicate some
journalists are thriving on change, on the faster pace, rolling deadlines and opportunities
pull out one story a to break more stories: “My focus is on news breaking,” said one reporter, “It’s all very
month from some well to pull out one story once a month from some investigative unit, but someone has
investigative unit, to ‘feed the beast’ and I respect that type of work as well”.
but someone has to Others are struggling to adapt to expectations about re-skilling, to reconfigured news
agendas and standards and to the relentless new imperatives of speed, immediacy and
‘feed the beast’.” instant reader appeal.
“The story gets forgotten in the search to dress it up,” said one reporter, “We need
substance, not just enthusiasm for technology, it’s the story that should be the foremost
consideration.” Another reporter said, “We publish a lot more now without thinking
about whether it is good or not.” A more senior colleague worried aloud about the
political implications of the rush to get stories up online: “It’s bad for public debate,” he
said, “there’s a tendency for misinformation to gather its own pace and be taken as fact
when it’s not. The immigration debate is a good example.”
The old rules of the news game are gone. Only a decade ago, journalism was a
stable, medium-sized occupation; news production followed well-established routines
and conventions, and the internet looked like offering interesting new possibilities
for news production and delivery. Now, unstable revenues and job cuts mean fewer
reporters, reconfigured workflows, centralisation and outsourcing of subbing and other
elements of news production, and increased workloads and responsibilities. The pace of
daily journalism is faster. There are many more readers, with many more information
demands. And the tasks of newsgathering and storytelling are getting more complicated
as journalists are expected to enrich the reader’s experience by adding audio, video,
photos or other types of visual data to text-based stories.
Issue #7 Not just another business

Many journalists both in Australia and overseas have made the point that journalism is
more than simply a money-making business; it has both a democratic function as well as
a commercial function. Nearly all journalists (including those interviewed in the survey
for this report) speak in terms of journalism’s role as a mechanism for accountability and
a means to scrutinise the powerful.
Principles such as these are embodied in the structure and history of many major news
organisations around the world. When Rupert Murdoch bought The Times and The Sunday
Times, a parliamentary Act stipulated that this group of newspapers had to be run by an
independent board. Similarly when Murdoch bought Dow Jones & Company (which
includes the The Wall Street Journal), an independent committee concerned with the
appointment of editors was part of the deal. Editors sometimes insist on clauses in their
contract specifying independence and non-interference on editorial matters. As well as
this, governments of all stripes have often treated the purchase of news media differently
from simple commercial transactions. There have been restrictions on the concentration
of media ownership and on foreign ownership. As this report is being compiled the
federal government is debating whether to require that any major change of media
ownership pass a test that it is “in the public interest”.
More recently, principles of editorial independence from the commercial and political
pressures have been the focus of a conflict around the ownership of Fairfax Media. This
began when the mining boss, Gina Rinehart, purchased a significant holding in Fairfax
Media. It soon became clear that one of the motivations for the purchase was to influence
the editorial side of the company’s newspapers. Questioned about her move by ABC TV’s
Four Corners, Ms Rinehart said she was “concerned by the lack of understanding in the
media” on the issue of climate change. Sceptical points of view should be published, she
said, “not just the views of climate extremists”. Climate change was “not due to mankind
at all”, she said. Some associate her desire for influence with earlier calls from leading
British sceptic, Christopher Monckton, (invited in by Rinehart to Australia in 2011 to give
a lecture in honour of her father Lang Hancock) that the “super rich” should purchase
mainstream media to influence public debate.
The existing board members of Fairfax Media have resisted Rinehart’s call for two or
more seats and have insisted that she publicly agree to the Fairfax charter of editorial
independence, which limits the right of board members to directly influence editorial
24
processes and content. Ms Rinehart has refused to do so and, as noted, has sold down her
interest to 15 per cent of the company.
The current charter of editorial independence was adopted in 1992 as part of the public
listing of Fairfax.
Fairfax Media’s CEO, Greg Hywood, recently described the charter as the “rock on
which we base this organisation”. The charter was “part of the culture of the place”, he
said. It meant that the board had the right to appoint editors but that it was the CEO’s
responsibility to select and interview the candidates. The charter, he said, prevents
“individual board members from going to individual journalists and telling them what
they should or should not write”. It was both a promise to readers that they get fair-
minded representation, and a “promise to advertisers: that they would be treated fairly”.
Cartoon by Ron Tandberg
To test claims that Australian journalists have been slow to embrace digital tools except
as a way to promote and distribute their work, we polled Walkley-winners for 2010 and
2011, asking about their use of these tools in researching and producing their stories.
Around a quarter said they had used social media tools to research their subjects; the
most popular means being through blogs and message boards (28 per cent); followed by
Facebook (22 per cent) and Twitter (17 per cent).
Respondents who used social media commented that the volume of people now using
such tools – and the information they are willing to share make them good tools for
finding sources and discovering social trends. Online message boards and chatrooms, as
well as blogs, were also seen as good places for locating sources: “Social media allows you
to cut through the red tape and speak directly to people,” said one respondent.
Another prize-winner, while enthusiastic about the use of such tools to find sources,
especially for international stories, social media “ought not to replace direct verbal or
written contact between journalists and sources”.
Another respondent observed that certain blogs, by high-profile professionals and
business people, provided authoritative insights – the key thing being the authority of the
source.
Access to photos was also cited by several respondents as important plus point for using
tools such as Facebook.
However some respondents also raised ethical concerns such as invasion of privacy,
while others cited the difficulty of verifying information and identity of bloggers – one
instance cited was the “Gay Girl in Damascus” blog, which claimed to document the life of
25-year-old Amina Abdallah Arraf al-Omari, a half-Syrian, half-American lesbian living in
Damascus and turned out to be written by a middle-aged American man living in Scotland.
“I would generally only use it as a search and messaging tool, not necessarily a source
25
of unquestionable facts,” seems to sum up the attitude of those people who said they used
social media tools in their work.
As for multimedia presentation, few respondents said they or their organisation had
fully exploited the possibilities that their stories offered. Most said their stories – whether
they were print or broadcast (TV and radio) – had been available online, but very few
had offered broad multi-media packages. About 17 per cent said their stories had been
accompanied by a slideshow of images and the same number said their stories had
employed interactive graphics.
Several respondents said their work might have been enhanced if it had been
accompanied by original documents and extra features such as (as one print respondent
suggested) video interviews.
“I think it’s great that you can feature extra interviews, longer cuts and supporting
materials online to allow audiences to engage with a story more thoroughly,” said one
respondent, cautioning that as many people would be accessing this material on a small
screen, it would have to be carefully designed. “If someone likes your story they’re
generally keen to see/learn more.”
The main drawbacks were seen as a lack of time and resources as well as insufficient
training for reporters to be able to attempt some of these enhancements themselves.
When it came to distribution and promotion, 50 per cent of respondents said their work
had been promoted by social media – the majority by Facebook and Twitter.
When asked whether the use of new media tools should be regarded as an important
journalistic skill, most respondents were cautious, and stressed that, as one put it: “the
quality of the story is more important than the technology used to deliver it”. This message
recurred, in different ways, time and time again. “I think high-quality journalism is almost
immediately recognisable through its sheer impact and importance,” wrote another.
However others saw the use of social media for sourcing and distributing stories, and
multi-media tools for the production and presentation of issues as “vital journalistic skills”.
“In terms of presenting, I think multimedia is more than just a skill, but something every
journalist simply has to master,” wrote one respondent.” Thinking about the presentation
of your story as a multimedia package from the outset is not an optional extra anymore.
These skills greatly enhance newsgathering, quality and presentation and I believe they
should be recognised with prizes.”
The question of whether use of new media tools and technology should be specifically
recognised by industry awards divided people. Those who had used such tools the fullest
naturally felt that they should be recognised, while the majority did not see the need.
The consensus was that the quality of the journalism should always be the central
criterion for awarding prizes, while the presentation (or “bells and whistles” as one
respondent put it) should always be a secondary concern.
One respondent summed it up thus: “The journalistic skills are not really changed.
For me, new media provides extra outlets for distribution but doesn’t change the basic
journalistic skill set. High-quality journalism is about research, tracking down people to
talk, analytical skills and the ability to communicate clearly – most of which are unaffected
by the medium (new or otherwise).”
We will return to the important issue of digital journalism and news quality and
standards later in this report, after first turning our attention to the changed relationship
between journalists and readers.
26
Journalists’ changing
relationships to readers
Do Australian newspaper journalists provide news and information services that
networked, information-rich, and technologically savvy news consumers want or need
anymore? Relevance is a major question driving the changing relationship between
journalists and readers, and a major issue in terms of journalism’s ongoing capacity to
serve democracy. We know that digital technologies enable unprecedented opportunities
for interaction and exchange between journalists and readers. We also know that
readers (citizens) have relished the chance to comment on, add to, re-work, re-tell, and
re-distribute stories published on online news sites, as well as creating their on news
communities using blogs, social media and other digital tools. Citizen journalism is
rewriting the relationship between politicians and voters. This section examines the ways
that increased reader engagement is forcing journalists to rethink who their readers are,
what they want from the news, and where they fit into news reporting and production.
There are no easy answers to these questions, especially in a changing and uncertain
industry environment, but they will not go away and clearly need more attention.
Dumbing down or democratisation of news

Past research about journalists’ contribution to democracy in Australia, and elsewhere, is of
particular relevance to this part of the study. This research reveals Australian journalism’s
inherent strengths as a communication practice that serves the public interest by
scrutinising the powerful and holding governments to account. Nonetheless, the research
also shows citizen fatigue with the idea that journalists are the key intermediaries between
politicians and voters. It points to growing interest in more open and participatory
political communication practices, in which journalists and readers interact and
collaborate in telling the stories of politics and social change.
Australia’s journalistic culture was scrutinised as part of the 2011 Media for Democracy
Monitor project, a ten-country study of media performance. Journalism researcher Beate
Josephi (2011) found that Australian journalists showed an “astonishing” and salutary
dedication to investigative journalism. Her study revealed that nine out of ten journalists
surveyed said the watchdog function was their most important role; that Australian
journalism awards its highest prizes – the Walkley Awards – to investigative pieces; that
journalism education assigns high importance to training students in investigative
techniques; and that news media give resources to investigative teams or sections, and
highlight their achievements in this area in their mission statements. Josephi noted that
this professional and institutional commitment to supporting democracy was all the
more remarkable given Australia’s lack of a constitutional right to free speech, or a legal
framework for the news media.
Elsewhere, Schultz (1998) showed the historical connection between investigative
journalism and the Fourth Estate ideal, where the press claims independent standing in
the political system in order to pursue its role as democracy’s “watchdog”. She suggested
commercial self-interest had drastically weakened the capacity of the contemporary
press to act in the public interest. Ricketson (2012) argued, on the other hand, that while
press research highlights tensions between the commercial and journalistic goals of news
organisations, it is sometimes forgotten that independent journalistic scrutiny is both
“rare” and expensive. He suggested, further, that new technologies would not resolve
“pre-existing issues” – claims the news media are too powerful, lack accountability, and no
longer contribute to democracy in a meaningful way because they are widely distrusted –
and journalists should not take audiences for granted or assume they will pay for news.
The problem of who will pay for journalism in the future concerns international
as well as local media analysts. In Britain, Peter Anderson and Geoff Ward (2007)
reported that the so-called “ec-tech squeeze”, the simultaneous impact of economic and
technological pressures, had encouraged “soft news” production at the expense of costly
quality political reporting, and risked reducing journalism to the role of entertainer. As a
consequence, they said, political disengagement was accelerating, particularly amongst
young people, leaving the news media and, more broadly, democracy, in a “mess”.
Similarly, in the Australian context, Rod Tiffen (2010) has challenged complacency over
the demise of newspapers, the “biggest diggers for news”, arguing online newspapers will
be smaller operations, with reduced advertising revenues, and this means a likely decline
in the flow and quality of informational content, with diversity limited to opinion rather
than original content creation.
27
In summary, past research in this area highlights tensions between claims that reader
engagement and citizen journalism mean a “dumbing down” of news and, on the other
hand, claims that they foster a healthy and welcome democratisation of journalism.
We asked a range of questions to build a better picture of the different dimensions of the
changing relationship between journalists and readers. In the first instance, we asked all
respondents about readers paying for online news, co-creating content, interacting more
with journalists and, more broadly, their views on the trend towards more conversational
forms of journalism. We wanted to explore journalists’ reactions to the increasing
proximity between journalists and readers, and to get a sense of any concerns related to
this trend. The results are grouped according to the following four theme: first, redefinition
of the journalist-reader online relationship; second, newspapers’ reader engagement
strategies and concerns; third, new editorial priorities and challenges and, fourth, renewing
the concept of public service.
Issue #8 From gatekeepers to conversationalists

Reader engagement is the new mantra of daily journalism. Yet, for the journalists in our
study, the idea of readers taking a bigger role in the daily work of journalism is far more
troubling than the shift to readers paying for news. They are not alone.
Journalist and academic Jane Singer (2011), a leading international expert on digital
journalism, describes journalists’ new relationship with people outside the newsroom as
“extremely difficult”, for a number of practical and professional reasons.
Day-to-day dealing with readers presents itself as an open-ended task that needs to
be fitted into already growing workloads, more frequent deadlines and the storytelling
demands of different news delivery platforms. Instead of getting information to people
quickly, journalists are now encouraged to stop and chat to anyone and everyone with
something to say. The gatekeepers have to reinvent themselves as conversationalists. It is
time-consuming work that is sometimes of dubious value. Says Singer: “It turns out that
most people are not actually interested in talking about the news, at least not on media
websites, and those who are interested too often make contributions that are abusive,
inane, or just plain wrong.”
There are next to no rules of engagement guiding these online conversations, but that
is far from the trickiest part of the emerging relationship. After all, website publishers can
close or take down comments on stories when things get out of hand.
The biggest challenge for journalists begins when they swap the formal “objective”
narrative style they use in news writing for the more personal style of reader engagement
which is expressed by: “I” and “you”. The writing styles of journalists and readers
converge, making it harder to distinguish one from the other in the “unending stream” of
digital media.
And, Singer tells us, that’s just for starters. The give and take of reader engagement
raises questions about who controls editorial priorities, news values, and decisions about
what makes a good story. She explains: “The journalist defines truth as the result of an
occupational process: pre-publication verification – with the journalist doing the verifying.
The online zeitgeist flips that idea on its head. Publication is the first, not the last, step in
the process of verification because only after an idea is published can it be, collectively,
vetted.”
In other words, perceived news value will increasingly be a function of journalist-reader
interactions rather than the journalist’s or editors idea of what makes a story “good”.
The shift to conversational forms of journalism thus brings with it a loss of what
Margaret Simons, in her 2007 study of the changing world of journalism, The Content
Makers, termed the media’s power over how individuals and organisations are represented
in public. Simons merely notes this loss, rather than mourning its passing, arguing that
interaction and transparency build readers’ trust and give journalists hope for the future.
Elsewhere, in the US and UK, journalists are resolving these dilemmas, Singer argues,
by remodelling the gatekeeper role to include a stronger focus on news quality (not just
quantity) and, despite high resource costs, moderation of reader contributions. She says:
“Journalists at national newspapers throughout Europe and North America moderate
public contributions, to limit the potential for ethical abuse and legal transgressions.” In
these two ways, journalists are trying to renew their authority and the relevance of their
work in an information environment that no longer accords them a central place.
28
Redefining the online relationship
The findings suggest that journalists were ready for the shift to user-pays online news.
Two-thirds (68 per cent) of respondents said readers would have to pay for online news
in future. They viewed the introduction of paywalls or digital news subscriptions as both
“inevitable” and necessary. Others took the view that paying “makes sense” because
“readers pay for the newspaper now, paying for online is the next step.” Several journalists
compared paying for news with buying other commodities, ranging from chocolate
bars to music downloads to bottled water: “I think it’s bizarre,” said one journalist,
“that people will pay $3 for a bottle of water that should be free and yet expect content
produced by experts for nothing, it’s economic nonsense!”
Those who disagreed, a minority (21 per cent), were either opposed in principle to
the user-pays idea or pessimistic about making it work “I don’t want to pay,” said one
journalist, “so why should they?” Another journalist said, “It’s just a dumb idea. News is
news. The whole point is to get it out there before anyone else.” A third view was that “it’s
a theoretically justifiable experiment, although I wonder whether it will be sustainable.”
There was a range of views about what readers should pay for. Forty-six journalists
talked about the need to “value add” in some way. Many thought general news should
remain freely available, with readers paying for “something new and different and worth
paying for”.
“I tend to think of it like iTunes,” said one editor, “you pay for music because you can
listen to it again and again. So, you won’t pay for some throwaway 10-par rip-off from
AAP because you’ll never read it again. You might pay for a tool that helps make sense
of the federal elections, or the federal budget, something important like that, or what is
the hung Parliament in 10 dot points…you wouldn’t pay for just that one FAQ but if you
knew that this was the sort of place that did that tomorrow as well, you might subscribe
and stick around.”
Reader engagement strategies and concerns

Journalists welcomed greater contact with readers, describing it as a “healthy”
development and welcomed the editorial benefits of readers’ tip offs and story
suggestions.
Journalists were enthusiastic about the increased interactivity between journalists and
readers that digital technology allows, with two-thirds (69 per cent) of respondents in
favour, one fifth (22 per cent) against and only a few (4 per cent) undecided.
“I’m hugely in favour of accepting everything from readers – stories, comment pieces,
photographs, vox pops, everything,” said one journalist, “I think the more the readers are
involved, the better for the newspaper because they take ownership, they feel ownership,
and there’s nothing stronger, it’s the newspaper’s greatest asset.”
“I’m very happy not to be the sole gatekeeper anymore,” said an editor.
“Interactivity is a good thing,” said another journalist, “I think journalists have to be
constantly reminded of the effect that their reporting, their writing, has on people and it
sort of breaks down the ‘us and them’ mentality.”
“It builds community,” said another reporter, “if you have interaction then, one, you
get stories out of it; two, you start to understand the readership in that really granular
way, and three, it gives the reporter a sense of responsibility. If the readers don’t like
it, or if you are wrong, you are going to find out immediately. There is an element of
transparency and honesty about it.”
“If journalists are smart,” said another editor, “they’ll shut up and listen, actually listen
to readers, and they’ll get the feeling of whatever community they’ve plugged into, they’ll
get what the community is saying, thinking, feeling, whinging about and enjoying.”
“You have to be ready for it,” said another editor, “because there is an avalanche of
unmet need out there, of people wanting to talk to you about things that are happening
to them.”
“It’s a good thing because it keeps you in contact with your audience”, said another
journalist, “but the danger is that you listen to the loudest voices, which aren’t necessarily
representative, there are lots of people out there, at the extreme end of your range of
readers, who like to give their opinion and there is the danger of skewing the debate.”
“You become very vulnerable to pressure groups and attempts to manipulate the
media”, said another editor, “the perfect example is talkback radio, and that is not my
idea of good journalism.”
“How broad is the interactivity?” asked one journalist, “there’s obviously a bunch
of media junkie types that are interacting, but I don’t know about reaching the masses
through interactivity.”
29
Content co-creation
Opinions were more divided over readers contributing to content creation, and while
almost half (45 per cent) of respondents favoured this trend, one third (33 per cent) said
they were against it, and another one in five (21 per cent) said they were undecided.
Figure 10: The hard question
“This debate is all a bit high-falutin’,” said one editor, “the papers at the regional or
suburban level, the free papers, they give great community service because their columns
are so open to their communities…if you want a paper that is going to be vibrant and
survives and has revenue and an audience, you’ve got to get people to write in.”
The biggest concern was about the future of journalistic expertise although there was
plenty of interest in the democratic potential of this development. Much of the argument
hinged on the type of content that readers might contribute and the level and cost of
moderation/editing that might be needed before this type of content was published.
“I think it’s democratic,” said one journalist, “I’m happy about it with an important
caveat that professional journalists must maintain strict control over the editing and the
output.”
“I think it’s a very exciting prospect,” said another journalist, “but you really need to
have very experienced journalists managing the process.”
“If people are going to pay for us,” said a third journalist, “they want to actually see
some value put into the reporting and editing that makes it worth paying for, not just what
some bloke down at Mount Gravatt, or up at Caboolture or over in New Farm thinks, you
hear that for free on talkback radio.”
Conversation
There was even more disagreement over the shift to more conversational forms of
journalism. Only one quarter (25 per cent) of respondents endorsed the idea that print
journalism is moving away from its traditional role of producing newspapers of record to
become a “living conversation”.
“What we have to achieve,” said one editor, “is to move professional journalism more
effectively into the immediate space, which is widely populated by the citizen journalist
and the blogger. Journalists need to be much smarter and more effective in what they do in
the online breaking news space.”
On the other hand, one third (34 per cent) of respondents were reluctant to accept the
term “conversation” as the new modus operandi of either newspapers or their websites, and
suggested this characterisation of the changes underway was at best debatable. Journalists
might well be engaged in lots more online exchanges with readers and news reported
with more immediacy online, but for this group of respondents this did not amount to
conversation becoming the most important, much less, sole purpose of journalism.
As one journalist explained, “If the trend is to think of online news as ‘opinion-sharing’
then that can – and often does - quickly descend into ‘opinion-shouting’. And then like the
worst of Twitter, it’s just a bunch of voices talking at each other, not to each other. It could
also mean sites tailor their coverage to the loudest five per cent of their audience, thinking
they are representative of all, rather than pushing themselves to look for new audiences
and new areas of interesting issues to report in an innovative way.”
30
“You’ve got to tell the story of what has happened,” another journalist said. “To bring
people up to the point where the conversation starts – and newspapers will continue to
play that role.”
New editorial priorities and challenges

We asked editorial executives more specific questions about the changing relationship
between newspapers and their readers, including knowledge of readers’ news preferences,
changes in editorial priorities in response to increased interactions with readers, and
measures being taken to maximise website traffic and/or raise non-advertising revenue. We
were interested to explore the views of those with newsroom management responsibilities,
to assess the importance given to changing the journalist-reader relationship at the
organisational level.
All but seven of the 39 editorial executives spoke with confidence about the types of news
that readers want, and, more particularly “what draws the eyeballs” of online readers. Many
of them were using quantitative and/or qualitative research, as well as reader feedback, to
track and discern readers’ news preferences. The over-riding reader preference identified by
this group of respondents was for news that is relevant to the readers’ daily lives.
Readers want news that impacts directly on their lives, whether it is about politics and
economics or other issues such as transport, food, wine, health, education, fashion, media,
travel, religion, or the weather. “They’re interested first in the world immediately around
them,” said one editor. “Readers want us to help them live their lives,” explained another “Focus groups
editor, “that’s what I’ve taken from the research.” A third editor said, “They want to be reported readers
given the tools to be able to make choices themselves.” A fourth editor linked readers’ saying they were
expectations about relevant news to the need for high quality reporting and analysis: “The
hunger these days is for news that tells me why something has happened, how it’s going
interested in politics,
to impact on me and my life, the likelihood that I’m going to find it harder to pay the while their online
mortgage or feed my family or live in a sustainable environment,” he said, “that’s why we tracking showed
need more sophistication in our journalism, we need journalists who understand these gossip, sex and
things and can communicate them in an understandable way, with authority and depth.”
celebrity stories.”
Part of the challenge of meeting reader preferences is dealing with their foibles. For
example, the editorial executives agreed that people want to read stories about politics
but, as one editor noted, “They like politics but only when it’s what they believe is the
correct side of politics.” Several respondents said their internal research shows a clear
discrepancy between what readers say they want and what they actually consume. This is
evident in relation to readers’ readiness to express interest in politics and business stories
and, at the same time, their reluctance to say they want to read gossip. Several editorial
executives indicated their focus group research reported readers saying they were interested
in politics, while, conversely, their online story tracking showed gossip, sex and celebrity
stories generating far more traffic. As one editor noted, “the issue that newspaper and
Cartoon by Fiona Katauskas
31
online sites have to grapple with is what people think they want, and what we think
they want, versus what they read.” “We have a finicky readership that likes quality,” said
another editor, “they love world news stories; but they also love gossip although they
won’t admit to reading it.”
In relation to political and business news, there was interest in both state and national
political and economic issues. Readers particularly want to know about poor economic
management by government: “when there’s a perception that the state government is
misusing funds, we get a very strong reaction online,’ explained one editor. “The right
political story will rate well,” said another editor, and what I mean by the right political
story is where there’s a personality involved!”
Interest in sport is much more unambiguous: “Sport is one of the golden spots in
journalism at the moment,” said one editor, “The more sport you have in the paper, the
better you seem to go…people like to read about success and they like to be inspired.”
Five editorial executives made the point that readers increasingly demand news coverage
with “a bit of light and dark”, that is, some “good news” stories to balance the flow of
information about society’s conflicts and problems. One editor said, “Readers want a laugh,
that’s a real challenge”. “They don’t want bad news jammed down their throats,” said
another editor, “they don’t want to be frightened about the world they live in, they want
to be informed, but not intimidated.”
The editorial executives linked their newspapers’ capacity to provide comprehensive
coverage that helps readers to understand the complexity of the world around them, to
readers’ trust in journalism. Interestingly, only about half of them saw responsiveness to
readers as another trust-building strategy.
Twenty-one of the 39 editorial executives said their editorial priorities had changed as a
result of increased interaction with readers, including story choices and angles, the length
of time a story runs and the prominence it is given, and the range of voices that get a
hearing. “We are trying to meet the demand for what people want online,” said one editor,
“we are adapting to how they want news, what type of news they want, and how quickly
they want it.” Another editor said, “We often get feedback online and turn it into stories.”
The feedback is not always that constructive, as a third editor explained, “Certainly
there’ve been instances when the readers have been quite venomous about something that
we’ve written, and that’s caused us to go back and rethink the approach we’ve taken to the
story.”
Sharing editorial responsibilities with readers, even to a limited extent, is not an easy
issue for the editors, or their newsroom staff, because it raises questions about the role of
journalists and editors. As one editor explained, “At the heart of that question is whether
editors should tell people what they need, or listen to people and give them what they
want…but isn’t one of the functions of editors and media organisations to challenge
people, to set an agenda, to find new stuff? Isn’t the contract between the reader and the
journalist one based on trust, on the readers trusting us to exercise our judgment?”
For other editorial executives, adapting journalistic practices to meet the new
circumstances was more important than redefining roles: “As you know,” said one editor,
“the stories where we shine lights into dark corners often don’t have the audiences,
and yet clearly and obviously they are still a very crucial part of journalism. I think it’s
incumbent on journalists to present those stories in ways that make them relevant to
people. It’s not good enough just to write that story anymore in a way that assumes
knowledge. I think that’s what we often did in the past with our investigative journalism.”
Renewing the concept of public service

Improving journalism’s service to readers is a third recurring theme in the responses of
editorial executives. Half (20) of these 39 respondents indicated they knew more about
serving their readers because they had increased interactions with readers. Some editors
went further, expressing the need to defend journalism’s public service orientation against
market pressures. One editor explained this as a struggle between reputation and the new
“rules of the game”, between saying what would stand up to scrutiny, and saying what
you think: “There are many ways of scrutinising what we do now from outside,” he said,
“It’s not possible to pretend that you can write what you think, you can blog what you like
– you can’t do that, and we’re very conscious of that now…and of trying to preserve the
newspaper’s reputation, and to remain true to its standards and principles.” Moderation
of online commentary, and not chasing online “traffic” for the sake of it (for example, “by
doing tits and bums on the home page”) were two other measures identified with better
service. “The best kind of search engine optimisation,” said one editor, “is a fantastic
scoop.”
That editorial executives continue to express their commitment to serving readers is
somewhat surprising when you consider the pressures they are under to chase “eyeballs”.
32
Twenty-eight of the 39 editorial executives said they were taking measures to maximize
traffic to their newspaper’s website, ranging from search engine optimisation, cross-
promotion of newspaper and website stories and picture galleries, to social media
marketing, user alerts, and direct marketing via email newsletters. Only 11 of the 39
editorial executives indicated they were not directly involved in taking these types of
measures.
Editorial executives were more reticent to talk about the work their newspapers are doing
to increase non-advertising revenue streams; 22 of the 39 respondents to this question said
they were not involved in the business side of the newspaper, or, if they were, would prefer
not to discuss money-making strategies in detail. Amongst those who offered some general
observations about emerging new business models, talk of “journalists” and “readers”
quickly gave way to talk about “content” and “traffic”, PIs and UBs (page impressions
and unique browsers), “user profiles” and “behavioural targeting”, or “transactions”,
“subscriptions” and “selling apps”.
This shift in lexicon was a stark reminder, if one was needed, that the business
of newspaper journalism no longer depends on using news stories to sell readers to
advertisers, an activity of diminishing financial rewards. Instead, at the time of the survey,
“selling apps” was seen as the most exciting potential new revenue-earner, a “back to the
future” option that, in the words of one editor, was even garnering “great confidence and
interest from hardened newspaper editors”, mainly because “it closes the knowledge gap
between digital and print, with apps, we’re all newbies together, we’re all in the dark, so
that has brought digital and print back together again.”
The responses outlined above demonstrate an overall readiness amongst newspaper
journalists to engage more directly and in more interesting and collaborative ways with
readers. Nonetheless, the data also reveals that journalists face two kinds of difficulties
at the moment in building new relationships with existing readers and attracting new
audiences: first, the practical issue of finding ways to fit increased interactions with readers
into their daily work routines, and, second, the professional issue of working out what
these exchanges might contribute to both editorial content and reader satisfaction.
The conceptual challenge is tough. The idea that readers would act in league with
journalists to create good journalism and enhance news quality may require significant
rethinking of the values and standards that are intrinsic to journalists’ professional culture.
As we’ll discuss in the next section on professional standards, that culture is an important
resource that, arguably, has given journalism its resilience in the face of technological
and market pressures. By “professional culture”, we’re referring here to the commitment
to the Code of Ethics, to well-established role perceptions and news conventions, to the
professional association and its prize system that gives collective expression to journalists’
aspirations, and to journalism education and training that prepares and socialises new
recruits. To be clear, we’re not saying journalist-reader collaborations are a bad idea because
they create new pressures to rethink some of the fundamentals of journalism. We are
saying that these new pressures should not be ignored while there is still time to do the
work of evolving professional values and standards that can give meaningful expression to
both journalism’s past strengths and the innovations it must adopt in the future.
33
Issue #9 The new competition

The digital era has spawned a number of rivals to traditional news journalism.
One new set-up which provides a sobering sign of the times is Australian Football League
(AFL) Media, which employs 40 journalists to write and produce content for AFL’s many
fans via its website and digital outlets.
AFL Media’s head of content, Matt Pinkney, says that the aim is to “create an
independent, credible news organisation which reports on AFL football”. Significantly,
Pinkney was once a leading digital editor at the Herald Sun in Melbourne before he moved
across to AFL Media. His move is notable because part of the digital business strategy of the
Herald Sun is based around positioning itself as the best place for AFL fans. Whether it can
still do that, given the rise of AFL Media, is another question.
Pinkney told Media Watch’s Jonathan Holmes earlier this year that the purpose of AFL
Media was not to put others out of business or to diminish their products. That makes
sense, since the purpose of AFL Media is to promote AFL through a variety of other TV,
radio and print media.
Pinkney also denied that AFL Media would smother negative football stories or would
deny other media the chance to get “human interest” stories about players directly from
local clubs. Nevertheless, he says that AFL Media is competing directly with the Herald Sun.
While the Herald Sun has its interactive footy game, SuperCoach, the AFL has DreamTeam.
Digital media enables such competition between a big sporting organisation and a key
part of the news media. When people say that the “barriers to entry” to the media no
longer exist, this is what it means.
Critics are alarmed. The managing director of the Nine Network, Jeff Browne, compared
AFL Media to the Soviet media system, which presented a “sanitised, city hall version of
events”. People “want to know the facts, as ugly as they sometimes are”, he said.
Many are watching what will happen with AFL Media, but the broader point is
about “branded content” a new form of advertising and marketing, which resembles
independently produced journalism or film making, but which is totally owned by a
product maker. The marketing writer for Fairfax, Julian Lee, points to a “documentary”
about the fast food giant, McDonalds, aired on Channel Seven in March 2012, which was
also paid for by the company. While Seven disclosed this fact, it was not obliged to.
Other rivals to journalism are the “content farms” – websites that publish a large amount
of cheaply produced articles on popular topics by freelancers. The articles and headings are
designed to attract the algorithms of search engines and draw huge audiences. Such sites
have a purely commercial purpose, being designed around selling space to advertisers on
the back of their large audiences. The problem is that the quality of writing and research
for the articles is often low, information is rarely, if ever, original and relies on using other
peoples’ research. Complaints about such sites clogging up searches led Google to refine its
algorithms in 2011, so as to promote high-quality information sites (such as news media)
and relegate low-quality content farms.
A variant on content farms was investigated by the Poynter Institute, a US journalism
school for mid-career journalists. These are companies such as Journatic, which provide
cheap, outsourced editorial copy to newspapers. While Australian newspapers have
outsourced some subbing, in the US routine newspaper journalism (suburban coverage,
real estate coverage) is also sometimes outsourced. In many instances, the poorly paid
journalists at this content farm live nowhere near the area on which they report (in some
instances Filipino writers are recruited to provide cheap content). They are also often
encouraged to introduce themselves as representatives of the newspaper that is buying
their content, rather than from the outsourcing company.
34
Future control over
professional standards
I
n this final section, we examine the question of how much power journalists,
individually and collectively, have over the future direction of the newspaper
industry in Australia. This may sound like an odd angle, at a time when the “ec-tech
squeeze”, the combined pressures of media commercialisation and technological
change, is intensifying employment insecurity and uncertainty about the future. Indeed,
as journalism researcher Suellen Tapsall (2001) noted, because the idea that technology
brings progress is so widely held, it is likely that many will feel powerlessness in the face of
changes that seem both inevitable and inescapable.
Yet, this study did not detect widespread feelings of disempowerment or resignation
amongst newspaper journalists. On the contrary, we found a mood for change. The
majority of journalists we spoke to were looking ahead with optimism, and there was no
shortage of views on what could or should be done to improve news content, exploit the
newsgathering and reporting potential of digital technologies, or beat the competition. Figure 11: Key roles
This section therefore discusses what these journalists believe their profession does best, for journalists
how they judge news quality, and why they seem ready to
evolve and adapt professional standards in this transition
period.
The Walkley Awards provide our benchmark for talking
to Australian newspaper journalists about what they do
best because they are the country’s leading media industry
prizes. Created by petroleum magnate Sir William Gaston
Walkley in 1956, and now administered by the Walkley
Foundation, the award system is open to all journalists on
the basis of self-nomination, and judged by distinguished
media industry figures. Around 1300 journalists compete
for these prizes each year. This is the profession’s own
way of rewarding good journalism and encouraging high
standards.
The market and the regulators both claim to influence
news media performance, although as stated in the
beginning of this report (see “Why talk about quality?”),
they do so on different terms. For newspaper companies,
optimal press performance – the “sweet spot” – can be found at the intersection of reader
appeal and profitability; for the electronic media regulators, strong media performance
depends on both competitive markets and intervention to ensure news media adhere to
community expectations about ethical standards.
What is often forgotten here is that professional journalists, as a group, also have a stake
in the issue of news quality. Their “sweet spot” lies in finding the balance between news
that is in the public interest and news that is popular, that the public is interested in;
their adherence to ethical standards is a self-imposed discipline, expressed in consistent
responses to the dilemmas posed by daily newsgathering and reporting, and “enforced”
through peer-pressure.
The newspaper journalists we spoke to had very strong feelings about news quality
and journalism standards. And, while many believed in the market dictum that quality
journalism would always find an audience, we also found awareness that journalists
themselves have to exercise more initiative in setting and judging the standards of news
media performance. Our discussion of this new insight provides one response to the
opening question on what journalists can do about the future of journalism.
The characteristics of Australian journalists

Interest in the changing occupational characteristics of Australian journalists has increased
in the digital age in the context of debates about the adaptability, accountability, and
power of society’s information gatekeepers. The major assumption in this research is that
journalists’ skills, attitudes and values need to be better understood because along with
organisational and societal constraints, they affect what is reported, contribute to shaping
news coverage and, thus, influence public opinion and policy (Weaver 1998). The other
assumption that drives this research is that journalism is an atypical profession that suffers
constant challenges to its jurisdiction over news production, but, on the other hand,
enjoys a strong institutionalised culture (Beam and Meeks 2011).
Past research in this area has consistently identified striking levels of homogeneity
35
in journalists’ backgrounds and beliefs at both the national and international levels.
In 1998, John Henningham (1998) found Australians journalists were typically young,
well-educated, middle-class, and male. He estimated there were around 4,500 journalists
working in mainstream newsrooms at that time. They were committed to information
dissemination, valued autonomy and editorial policies, frequently held “somewhat left-of-
centre political views” and faced two main challenges: media ownership concentration and
new media technologies. According to Henningham and Delano (1998), Australian, British
and US journalists’ shared comparable professional roles and values, although British
journalists were more “gung-ho in ethical areas” and willing to “get the story and worry
about the consequences afterwards”. Interestingly, Susan Forde’s (2005) study of cultural
diversity in Sydney newsrooms, found two-thirds of the mainstream journalists surveyed
were from British or Irish backgrounds.
Mark Deuze’s (2002) five-country study of national news cultures backed up
Henningham’s findings. It revealed broad similarities in the way journalism is practiced in
the US, UK and Australia, but found Australian and British journalists rated the watchdog
or adversarial role more highly than their US counterparts.
The 2007-2011 Worlds of Journalism project found more evidence that Australian
journalists resemble their counterparts in Western liberal democracies, this time because
they shared a common belief in the media as Fourth Estate (see www.worldsofjournalism.
org/). They valued objective reporting and universal ethical rules, but were fundamentally
pragmatic, and tried to find a balance between giving audiences what they wanted, and
reporting news that journalists thought they should know (Hanusch 2008). Deuze (2008)
noted that the homogeneity underpinning journalistic perceptions and practices has
given coherence to news work, but, at the same time, has meant newsrooms tend to have
inward-looking, self-referential cultures: “journalists [tend to] privilege whatever colleagues
think of their work over criteria such as viewer ratings, hit counts or sales figures”.
The past research, in summary, confirms the strength and consistency over time
of Australian journalists’ role perceptions and values and suggests that professional
culture provides an important collective resource for any discussion of news quality and
journalism standards. At the same time, the self-evident gender bias, mono-culturalism,
and traditionalist orientation of the professional culture are significant limitations, which
can be seen to undermine Australian journalists’ capacity to respond adequately to a
rapidly changing, multicultural media world.
We asked five distinct sets of questions about journalism roles, values and standards in
order to explore journalists’ self-perceptions in the face of rapid workplace change and
the growing uncertainties of today’s news environment. To start, we asked all respondents
to define the most important role of journalists and to identify the journalism standards
and values that are most fundamental to their work. To get a deeper appreciation of the
relative importance of specific standards and values, we then used two sets of questions,
first, checking journalists’ views on the Walkley Award criteria, and, second, exploring
their perspectives on the characteristics of quality journalism in print and online. A
further set of questions asked about the current level of professional recognition for online
journalism, the standards by which it should be judged, and the standout attributes of
good journalism in this medium. The final question probed the meaning of the term
“quality journalism”. We wanted to gauge journalists’ level of confidence in the current
weight and future relevance of their professional standards. The results are grouped into
three themes: first, defining quality; second, continuity and change in journalism values
and standards and, third, evolving digital journalism standards.
Defining quality
Although the term “quality journalism” is bandied about with increasing frequency, it
is neither easy to define nor universally accepted. Four out of ten (40 per cent) of the
journalists we spoke to had reservations about its meaning and use.
One in ten (9 per cent) flatly rejected the idea, saying it was code for resistance to change
or, more colourfully, an excuse “to sit there for a couple of weeks thinking about your next
story”. For others in this group, “quality” was an out-dated concept, linked to a reluctance
to embrace digital journalism. One journalist said it was a problem of generational change
amongst more experienced journalists: “they see me as much more of a trash bag in my
news values,” he said, “but I think the world has changed and they’re refusing to change
with it.” Another journalist linked quality to the “look” of traditional newspapers, and said
newspaper companies and news readers were having trouble adjusting to digital formats: “I
like the idea of going into this different world online,” she said, “I don’t see any reason why
it should look like a traditional newspaper but I think we’re still hung up on that idea.”
Conversely, six out of ten (58 per cent) respondents agreed that “quality” was a
keyword for the future. For half of this group, interest in quality signalled a willingness to
36
embrace digital journalism. “Online adds greater depth of information, a greater range of
information,” said one journalist, “we have to embrace the change and use it with all the
capacities it offers, which are enormous; but, it’s hard going through the process if you’re
not making scads of money…good journalism does cost money.”
Others were more interested in the credibility of digital journalism, especially in the
context of the shift to user-pays online news: “There’s no way you can charge for Lady
Gaga news. It’s impossible,” said one editor. “If all we’re doing is offering them a slightly
different version of something they can get on 473 websites,” said another, “why would
they pay for it?”
“It’s up to us to make sure people realise there is a difference”

Significantly, a handful of journalists and editors said the time had come to explain
“quality journalism” to readers, so that they could better distinguish it from other types
of digital content. “It’s up to us,” said one reporter, “to make sure people realise there is
a difference.” Another said, “You’ve got to take readers with you.” For a third journalist,
holding onto readers meant explaining what his newspaper did best: “Our competition
is the person on the street who is putting out a news blog,” he said, “The one thing that
differentiates us is the fact that we have opinion leaders.”
There is an interesting shift in these responses away from the long-standing market
dictum that quality journalism will always “find an audience”. These journalists are
mindful that producing and promoting good journalism will not necessarily, of its own
accord, convince readers to pay for news. More needs to be done to hold onto and extend
readerships: “If we lose that perception of quality,” said the editor of one of the weekend
papers, “then we lose our point of difference to the rest of the internet. The internet is
diverse and wonderful and has a lot of stuff but you don’t know whether you’re getting the
right information or not…you don’t know if it’s fact or fiction.”
Journalists’ “bad reputation” is part of this discussion. “We’re the least trusted,” one
journalist said, “and yet what we do requires us to be trustworthy. So, there’s a huge
disconnect there with what we think of what we do, and what others think of what we
do.” For this respondent, journalists wanting to bridge the “disconnect” needed to be more
frank with themselves, as well as with readers, about the nature and quality of their work.
There’s a “false impression”, this journalist said, “that what we have now is as good as it
gets, and it’s only threatened by online, but I think it’s been threatened by commercial
factors, poor management, and lack of standards in the past…we’re too easily open to spin
and political bias.”
For another reporter, being “frank” about current work standards raised the industrial
issue of work intensification: “Journalists do need to fight for the right to have time to do Figure 12: Journalists
their journalism,” he said, “If someone is constantly being bombarded with requests to keep (n=100) responses to 15
online updated then they can’t do their journalistic work, they can’t get out of the office to suggested characteristic of
network with people and that’s where a lot of the best quality journalism comes from.” quality journalism, ranked
Continuity and change in journalism according to their level of
agreement
values and standards
What, then, do journalists have to say about quality journalism in the
Characteristic of quality journalism Rank
transition from print to digital journalism? What do readers need to know?
One part of the answer comes from journalists’ responses to questions Strong element of public benefit 1
gauging their perceptions of quality journalism’s key characteristics. Editor’s support as essential 2
The 15 questions deliberately asked about key aspects of both print
and digital newspaper journalism in order to compare traditional and Platform-neutral 3
innovative approaches to defining quality. For the purposes of analysis, Keeps a newspaper profitable 4
the data was reduced to show the relative level of agreement with each Investigative reporting 5
of the 15 characteristics of quality journalism, and the following table
shows their final ranking. Better journalism in print than online 6
It is immediately clear that traditional newspaper values and standards Interactive and invites readers comments 7
rank highly, with four of the top five responses characterising quality
Strong knowledge of readers’ likes and dislikes 8
journalism in terms of long-standing news conventions: strong element
of public benefit, editorial leadership, the profitability of newspapers, and Online adds word length, links and updates 9
investigative reporting. Public participation 10
However, that is not the whole story. More insight can be gained by
Enhanced by online news site 11
turning our attention to the exception in the top five, the third most
agreed response, that quality journalism is “platform neutral”, meaning Better investigative reporting online 12
not specific to the medium (print, broadcast or digital). This ranking Broadsheets better than tabloids 13
indicates an innovative approach to journalism standards, although it
should not be overstated as there is still plenty of support for the sixth- Attracts the biggest audience 14
placed claim that better journalism is published in print than online. Deals with politics or business 15
37
Nonetheless, there is further evidence of a readiness to innovate in the fact that more
journalists agreed with interactivity and inviting readers’ comments as features of good
journalism, over and above the more traditional view, that quality is based on journalists’
knowledge of readers’ likes and dislikes. This result is consistent with other findings
discussed in the previous section on journalists’ changing relationship to readers.
The bottom end of the table also reveals the demise of two key aspects of traditional
approaches to news quality: first, the idea that broadsheets do better than tabloids, and
second, the idea that quality journalism “deals with politics and business” because they are
the two most important topics in journalism.
In short, the newspaper journalists we spoke to hold strong, common views on the key
characteristics of quality journalism, which for the most part they define in terms of what
newspapers have traditionally done best: investigative journalism in the public interest.
Nonetheless, there is also evidence of a more innovative approach to journalism standards,
perhaps driven by pragmatism, with journalists recognising that good journalism can
be found across all media platforms, and, further, surprisingly, that reader engagement
– interactivity, co-creation of content, and reader comments – adds to the quality of
Figure 13: Journalists journalism. Change in the professional culture of journalism may well be a slow process,
(n=100) responses to but these results indicate that change is underway.
11 criteria for judging One online editor explained the changing professional attitudes to online news
excellence in journalism, standards in the following way: “When I started, over three years ago, there was a lot of
ranked according to their emphasis on what drove traffic, and less emphasis on what you put up there to get the
perceived value traffic. So, as a result, you had an awful lot of curly pictures…now, if you look at it, there’s
far less of that, people have stepped back and thought, ‘hang on, this
Criteria for judging journalism Rank is not what we are on about, we’re on about quality journalism,’ so the
content has changed, and the traffic has still been there, but it is traffic
Ethics 1
that is less reliant on superficial titillation.”
Newsworthiness 2
What journalists do, what readers see
Public benefit 3
The other part of the answer comes from journalists’ perceptions of the
Originality 4 criteria for judging quality journalism. We asked journalists to evaluate the
Research 5 11 criteria used by the Walkley Awards to reward excellence in journalism
– creative flair, ethics, impact, incisiveness, innovation, newsworthiness,
Impact 6 originality, production, public benefit, research and writing – in order to
Writing 7 compare aspects of quality that are visible to readers, who see only the end
result of journalistic activity, with those aspects that may well be invisible
Creative flair 8
to readers, but express professional journalism’s core values and guide
Incisiveness 9 journalistic activity. For the purposes of analysis, the data was reduced to
Innovation 10 show the relative value given to each of the 11 criteria, and the following
table shows their final ranking.
Production 11
It is immediately clear, again, that the criteria that express core
professional values rank highly with four of the top five responses referring
to newsroom-based aspects of journalistic activity: ethical practice, news judgement,
originality and story research.
The difficulty for journalists is that while the quality of the end product depends on
these journalistic activities, they are not necessarily visible to readers. Moreover, there is no
certainty that readers share journalists’ definitions of news that has “public benefit”, the
third most valued criteria for judging journalism, and the only one directly related to the
end product that is visible to readers.
The bottom of the table is also troubling because it reveals newspaper journalists’
perceptions that innovation and production values are the least important criteria for
judging journalism standards; yet, arguably, these criteria refer to crucial aspects of what
readers see, and expect from, digital journalism’s various end products.
This becomes a pressing issue in relation to user-pays online news. As one editor noted, “the
iPad is the most realistic thing I’ve seen that people would actually pay for, if you’ve got good
quality applications. To me, it is different from online because in terms of the quality, some of
the apps that have been developed in the US are really good, so I’m thinking more of the iPad
than the websites when I’m commenting on readers paying for news.”
There are two other important results that add to our picture of continuity and change
in journalists’ values and standards. First, in relation to role perceptions, three-quarters (75
per cent) of the journalists in this study said their most important role was “to inform the
public” or similar statements, couched in terms of conveying information, explaining the
facts, telling the truth, providing the public with facts so they can decide, or getting the
news to people. One third of respondents (34 per cent) also said their role was to scrutinise
decisions of the powerful, to act as a watchdog for the public, to shine a light in the dark, or
to act as an accountability mechanism. Other common answers were “entertaining readers”
(15 per cent), usually as part of the process of informing the public or scrutinising power,
38
and “supporting democratic society”, or “giving people information so they can participate
in democracy” (13 per cent).
Second, in relation to professional values and standards, three-quarters (72 per cent) of
respondents identified “accuracy” – or related terms such as “getting the facts straight”,
“truth telling” or a desire to “get it right” – as the value that was most important to their
work. Other important values were fairness (37 per cent), honesty (36 per cent) and
autonomy (14 per cent).
In line with past research, these responses demonstrate a striking similarity of viewpoints
amongst the journalists we interviewed, a similarity that speaks of self-belief and
conviction. Moreover, we do not have to look far for an explanation of this confidence: the
journalists’ role perceptions and key values directly reflect the professional norms set out in
the Media Alliance’s Code of Ethics. The code, created in 1944 and last updated in 1999, is
a public statement about the what, how and why of journalism as well as a set of guidelines
for journalism practice and newsroom decision-making. That so many of the journalists in
our sample talk about their work in terms of truth-telling, informing and entertaining the
public, scrutinising power, giving people a fair hearing, and supporting democracy, suggests
the broader professional culture influences their individual self-perceptions and provides
evidence of the resilience of that culture. The newspaper journalists we spoke to remain
convinced that they have an important role to perform in Australian society, and know the
standards and values by which it can be done well.
Yet, this high degree of certainty about what journalists think they should be doing is
increasingly under assault as uncertainty intensifies as to whether newspaper companies will Figure 14: Key attributes
be able to support newsrooms with the staff, time and resources of online journalism
to do this kind of work in the future. There is, therefore, a
growing imperative to develop digital journalism standards if
journalists are to retain future control over news quality.
Evolving digital journalism standards

What is excellence in digital journalism? One of the central
aims of this study was to open up the discussion of existing
journalism values and standards in order to consider their
ongoing relevance in the digital media world. This topic
produced the most intriguing results from our interviews with
newspaper journalists.
An overwhelming majority of respondents (90 per cent)
said the existing Walkley criteria were suitable for judging
online journalism. Yet, on the other hand, when asked what
makes good online journalism, many respondents nominated
attributes that appear difficult to judge using these existing
criteria.
For example, half (46 per cent) mentioned speed, immediacy, timeliness and agility,
attributes that might or might not be captured by the criterion of “newsworthiness”. It is
true that the “production” criterion could be used to judge “multimedia production”, the
third most nominated attribute (17 per cent), but it is harder to find existing criteria that
address the other nominated attributes of “interactivity” (19 per cent) or “different news
values” (6 per cent).
The underlying issue here is professional recognition. Fully, two-thirds (66 per cent) of
the journalists we spoke to said online journalism does not get adequate recognition, in
the profession or the industry, for a variety of reasons, including the following:
• R
ecognition is linked to profitability, and that is still unclear.
• O
nline is good for breaking stories, but not for showcasing journalism skills.
• T
here is no “prestige” in online; good stuff is under-rated because it is online.
• T
he hypercritical online culture has created problems of trust and value.
The responses outlined above signal some of the challenges that journalists face in
collectively developing digital journalism standards that will define and reward excellence
in a medium that is evolving rapidly. It also provides evidence of readiness for, rather
than resistance to, the task of evolving and adapting professional standards to meet the
demands of the current transition from print to digital journalism.
The key idea that emerges from this part of the study is that journalists are starting to
realise that they need to do more to communicate their standards and values to readers,
and to engage the public in discussion about journalism’s strengths and weaknesses. There
is an emerging awareness amongst the journalists surveyed that people might better
appreciate the value of journalism, and be willing to pay for it, if they understand more
about the standards that distinguish the good from the bad.
39
Issue #10 Rewarding excellence in digital journalism

There were two highlights for online journalism in the 2011 Walkley Awards. First,
“Beating the odds”, an ABC News Online investigation of Mount Druitt’s disadvantaged
children, won the award for online journalism. The judges described it as “a stunning piece
of work” that left viewers feeling “empathy” for the community and its issues.
More significantly, WikiLeaks won the prize for most outstanding contribution to
journalism. The Walkley Trustees were impressed by its clever use of new technology to
support whistleblowers exposing official secrets, and its courageous commitment to the
journalistic tradition of seeking justice through transparency.
What, then, was the low point? Online journalists came away with none of the 12
Walkley prizes awarded in the “all-media” category. Instead, print journalists won seven
prizes, including best sustained coverage of an issue, and television journalists won five,
with the best scoop of the year going to Ten News for the “Skype scandal” story.
The irony here is that the two named categories – “best scoop of the year” and
“outstanding continuous coverage of an issue or event” – were introduced following the
2009 review of the prizes to give online journalists more opportunities to showcase their
particular expertise (see www.walkleys.com/walkley-review).
There is another reason why the 2011 Walkley outcome was surprising. Digital media
played a huge role in newsgathering and dissemination last year, from natural disasters in
Australia and overseas, to the Arab uprisings and the Qantas decision to ground its fleet.
Although Twitter had its biggest-ever scoop in May 2011, when Sohaib Athar live-tweeted
the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, even blockbuster Twitter-led stories, such as the
Brisbane floods, never had a chance of winning a Walkley because there is no category for
them.
The 2009 review also said all-media awards recognising skills and values fundamental to
the craft of journalism should replace platform-based awards (e.g. print, radio, television).
This means a major restructure of the awards; current industry trends suggest it may need
to happen soon.
Online journalists come off badly when they compete directly with print and broadcast
journalists. There has been only one outright online winner in any all-media category in
the past five years, a heraldsun.com.au team in 2009 for outstanding continuous coverage
of the Black Saturday bushfires.
The Gold Walkley has yet to be awarded to an online journalist.
Independent, web-only journalism has never won a Walkley award, although Crikey’s
Eric Beecher won the prize for journalistic leadership in 2007.
In fact, online journalists have won only a dozen prizes since online journalism was
included in the Walkley Awards in 1997. Since then, seven of the winners were working at
major newspapers (The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and Herald Sun), a tally that reminds
us that a lot of online content is re-versioned print journalism.
Digital journalism entries are judged according to the same 11 criteria used to decide all
the prizes, although this may be subject to change in the 2013 Walkey Award review. All
entries are currently required to demonstrate original, courageous and ethical journalism
practice. Innovative techniques such as live interaction, multimedia storytelling and
crowdsourcing are encouraged. In addition, the digital journalism category specifically
mentions the need to “showcase, benchmark and promote professionalism”. This fits with
the dual Walkley mission, identified by award founder Sir William Gaston Walkley in 1956,
of rewarding excellence and improving journalism standards, in this case, by identifying
benchmarks for innovation.
A key issue is whether to treat the internet as just another publishing platform, or to
develop categories and criteria that recognise what digital journalism does best.
40
Conclusion
Daily newspaper journalism in Australia is changing dramatically. This study is anything but a
lament for the demise of print media (“dead trees”), rather we set out to systematically examine
the implications of current economic and technological pressures for news delivery, newsroom
structures, workflows, editorial priorities, media standards, and interactions with readers. Our
underlying concern is how Australians will keep themselves informed or be able to participate
in democratic politics if there is a significant drop in the current supply of original news content
produced by professional journalists. That question takes on new urgency now that the next
phase of the commercialisation of news – paywalls – has started to be rolled out, heralding further
audience fragmentation, increased competition for audience attention, and new demands for
reader engagement. The results of our investigations, outlined above, combine to provide a rich
picture of an industry in rapid transition as well as insights into what newspaper journalists are
doing to renew their values and practices, and maintain the trust of the public, at this challenging
time. The views of newspaper journalists provide the key findings for this study. We draw on them Figure 15: What do we know
in this concluding discussion, which is arranged as a response to the research questions. about quality journalism?
What do we know about quality journalism?

We know the term “quality journalism” is hard to define and
not universally accepted; for some, it is code for resistance to
change, while others see it as the keyword that will unlock
journalism’s digital future.
No one talked about quality journalism in Australia, 20 or
even 10 years ago, and past journalism research tended to focus
on what was bad not what contributed to good journalism.
Even today, studies about tabloidisation or “the dumbing
down” of news far outnumber investigations of the concept
of quality or journalism standards. The term has garnered
increasing prominence in the past five years in the context
of newspapers seeking to “monetise” online news content. In
purely commercial terms, then, the focus on quality can be seen
as a by-product of efforts to raise the reputation of newspapers’
print products to attract consumer and advertiser support for
their websites.
Journalists, for their part, have taken up the issue of “quality journalism” in relation to two
key challenges facing their profession: first, job cuts, increased workloads and re-jigged routines
and, second, the exponential growth in competition from non-professional news providers
(aggregators, bloggers, and social media). Journalists have publicly questioned how the quality
of news reporting can be maintained when they are asked to produce multiple story versions,
for multiple platforms, aimed at multiple audiences (often without training). Moreover, they
have disputed the idea that “everyone is a journalist”, insisting that Australian society still needs
a workforce of salaried professional journalists who know how to produce accurate, credible,
public interest news.
We know from this study that journalists are now using the term “quality journalism”
as shorthand for the news content they hope readers will pay for. This begs the question of
whether readers appreciate or notice changes in news quality, or if they stop to consider the
economic and technological constraints under which news is produced. One key finding of this
study is that journalists need to talk to readers about journalism standards and values if they
want them to take an interest in the future of quality journalism.
What does the transition to digital journalism mean for news quality?
The jobs of professional journalists working in large newsrooms are at risk as the industry moves
to “digital-first” editorial models, print editions of major titles are being downgraded, news
production is outsourced, and staff are laid off (again). Employment in newspapers has become
more uncertain, less rewarding and more intense. Workloads have expanded as news delivery
platforms multiply. Three years ago, there was print and online; now there is print, online,
mobile phones and tablets.
As news moves into the next phase of commercialisation, the trend in freely available
multiplatform publishing is toward breaking and continually updating stories, as well as
re-versioning and recycling them across platforms and titles, while longer and more deeply
researched news stories will likely end up behind a paywall.
Experienced print journalists are learning audio/video production and other digital
journalism skills, either through employer provided on-the-job training or, more likely, through
individual initiative. They have to. Across the industry, the trend is toward hiring new staff with
digital media skills, to work on the digital platforms.
41
The newsroom-training deficit, described to us in detail by both editorial executives and

journalists, is bewildering. Many of the journalists we spoke to wanted to know about best-
practice digital journalism, not just how to use the latest content management system or
software package. As one journalist noted: “I know myself and my colleagues are crying out to
be taught multimedia skills, and to actually have control of our own websites for the area we
work in, where we can put up our stories, and put out our documents, and engage with readers,
and hold forums whenever we have particular interests or stories in the paper … we see that
as utilising all the tools and changes that are here … and there is frustration that we are not
being given the training or resources to do that.” The lack of employer-provided professional
development opportunities in this area, documented in this study, arguably amounts to a form
of de-professionalisation of the workforce. This is another key finding.
What could journalists do – perhaps in league with readers – to renew

and extend their standards in this transition period?
A third key finding is that more work is needed to define excellence in digital journalism,
explain what it looks like and identify the criteria that can be used to evaluate what it does best.
The Walkley Foundation is already taking the lead in this area and Laurie Oakes, chair of the
Walkley Advisory Board, has announced a major review of all the Walkley Award categories
in 2013. The idea is to adjust the prize system so that it more directly encourages professional
journalists to produce “highly differentiated, boundary-pushing digital story-telling”. In this
way, the Walkley Foundation hopes to boost the profile of innovative digital journalism and at
the same time encourage the consumption of professionally produced journalism by readers,
viewers and listeners. We agree with this strategy.
A complementary initiative might be to open a public dialogue about digital journalism
standards, with wide-ranging input, including from journalists and readers engaged with web-
only news sites – for example, Crikey, mUmBRELLA, Business Spectator, Global Mail, Inside Story,
The Conversation, and New Matilda.
The US-based Online News Association’s (ONA) award system provides another reference
point for developing criteria to judge excellence in digital journalism. The ONA gives prizes in
13 categories, including innovative investigative journalism, data visualisation, community
collaboration, technical innovation, blogging, and non-English online journalism. The last
category raises the important issue of how to better reward cultural diversity in journalism, a
further challenge, beyond the remit of this report, that nevertheless needs to be addressed to
achieve a more balanced news representation of Australia’s multiculturalism.
David Craig’s recent book, (Excellence in Online Journalism, 2011), commends the ONA
approach. He argues there are four key features of quality online journalism that deserve to be
reflected in awards: speed and accuracy with depth in breaking news; comprehensiveness in
content; open-endedness in story development; and the central place of conversation. Craig
says these features marry print journalism traditions with evolving digital journalism practices.
He argues the discussion of excellence in online journalism benefits from an ethical framework
that specifies the purpose or rationale for good practice. He also defines journalism as a social
practice (rather than an individual enterprise), which enables democracy by providing citizens
with the information they need. In sum, he argues that journalists who are interested in
excellence need to pay more attention to these particular features of online journalism. We
agree with this approach and recommend that the Walkley Foundation take it into account in
the 2013 review.
As we go to press, journalists are waiting to see whether the Gillard government intends
to leave the newspaper industry to self-regulate via the Australian Press Council – recently
cashed up, with a new national advisory panel, and on a mission to provide its members with
“practical” journalism standards – or to introduce some form of mandatory standards regulation
via a News Media Council, as recommended by the Finkelstein Inquiry, or some other statutory
body. We welcome the debate that will follow either decision. The lesson we draw from this
investigation is that robust public argument about the future of journalism is a thousand times
preferable to a slow, silent newspaper deathwatch.
42
References
Anderson, P. and Ward, G. 2007, The Future of Journalism in the Advanced Democracies, Aldershot, UK: Ashgate
Publishing.
Australian, 2012, Fairfax leads market drop, 16 February.
Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), 2011, Enduring Concepts: Communications and Media in
Australia, Available 30 June 2012 from <engage.acma.gov.au/enduring-concepts/>.
Barclays Bank, 2012, UK Media sector outlook, Available 12 July 2012 from <business.barclays.co.uk>.
Beam, R. and Meeks, L. 2011, So many stories, so little time: Economics, technology, and the changing
professional environment for news work, in W. Lowrey and P. J Gade, (Eds.), Changing the News: The Forces
Shaping Journalism in Uncertain Times, New York: Routledge
Crikey 2012, The quality journalism project, Available 20 July 2012 from < www.crikey.com.au/quality-in-
journalism/ >.
Deuze, M. 2008, Understanding journalism as newswork: How it changes, and how it remains the same,
Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, 5(2), 4-23.
Deuze, M. 2002, National news cultures: a comparison of Dutch, German, British, Australian and U.S. journalists,
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(1), 134-149.
Este, Jonathan 2012, Figures and graphs for this report, Sydney: Walkley Foundation.
Federal Communications Commission USA 2011, Information Needs of Communities, Available 20 July 2012 from
<www.fcc.gov/info-needs-communities>.
Finkelstein, Hon. R. and Ricketson, M. 2012, Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media
Regulation, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, Available 20 June 2012 from <www.dbcde.gov.au>.
Forde, S. 2005, The changing face of the Australian newsroom: Cultural and ethnic diversity among Sydney
journalists, Australian Journalism Review, 27(2), 119-134.
Garden, M. 2010, Are predictions of newspapers’ impending demise exaggerated?, Asia Pacific Media Educator, no.
20, 37-52.
Goldman Sachs, 2012, Media Sector Outlook 2012, 1 February, see < www.goldmansachs.com>.
Grueskin, B. Seave, A. and Graves, L. 2011, The Story So Far: What We Know About the Business of Digital Journalism,
New York: Columbia Journalism School.
Hanusch, F. 2008, Mapping Australian journalism culture: results from a survey of journalists’ role perceptions,
Australian Journalism Review, 30(2), 97-109.
Harding-Smith, R. 2012, Media Ownership and Regulation in Australia, Centre for Policy Development, Available
1 July 2012 from<cpd.org.au>.
Hartigan, J. 2010, Speech to News Awards, Available 23 July 2012, from <www.newsawards.com.au/>.
Henningham, J. 1998, Australian journalists, in D. Weaver (Ed.), The Global Journalist: News People Around the
World, Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press.
Henningham, J. and Delano, A. 1998, British journalists, in D. Weaver (Ed.), The Global Journalist: News People
Around the World, Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press.
Holgate, B. 2012, Newspapers at a crossroads, Australian Financial Review, 13 June.
Josephi, Beate 2011, Supporting democracy: How well do the Australian media perform? Nathan, Qld.; Griffith Centre
for Cultural Research, Griffith University.
Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance 2010, Life in the Clickstream II — The future of journalism, Media Alliance:
Redfern.
Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance 2008, Life in the Clickstream — The future of journalism, Media Alliance:
Redfern.
MediaPlanet, 2011, How The Advertiser revolutionised the newsroom, 25 February, Available 2 July 2012 from
<www.mediaplanet.org.au>.
Meyer, P. 1995, Learning to love lower profits, American Journalism Review, December
Meyer, P. and Kim, K-H. 2003, Quantifying newspaper quality: I know it when I see it, Paper presented to the
annual AEJMC conference, Available 13 July 2012 from <www.unc.edu/~pmeyer/Quality_Project/quantifying_
newspaper_quality.pdf>.
Morris, P. 1996, Newspapers and the new information media, Media International Australia, no. 79, 10-21.
Nguyen, A. 2008, Facing the ‘fabulous monster’: The traditional media’s fear-driven innovation culture in the
development of online news, Journalism Studies, 9(1), 91-104.
Newspaper Publishers’ Association (NPA) 2011, Submission to the Independent Media Inquiry, Available 20 June
2012 from <www.dbcde.gov.au>.
OECD, 2010, News in the Internet Age: New Trends in News Publishing, OECD Publishing, Available 15 October 2011
from <dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264088702-en>.
O’Donnell, P. 2009, That’s Gold! Thinking about excellence in Australian journalism, Australian Journalism Review,
31(2), 47-60.
Pew Research Centre’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2011, The State of the News Media, Available 2 June
2012 from <pewresearch.org/pubs/1924/state-of-the-news-media-2011>.
Pew Research Centre’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2012, State of the News Media, Available 3 June 2012
from <stateofthemedia.org/>.
Ricketson, M. 2012, Australian Journalism Today, South Yarra: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rosenstiel, T., Jurkowitz, M and Ji, H. 2012, How newspapers are faring trying to build digital revenue, Project for
Excellence in Journalism, Available 3 July 2012 from <www.journalism.org>.
Ruthven, P. 2012, A Snapshot of Australia’s Digital Future to 2050, IBM, Available 5 July 2012 from <ibm.com/ibm/
au/digitalfuture/index.html>.
Schudson, M. 2008, Why Democracies Need an Unlovable Press, Malden: Polity Press.
Schultz, J. 1998, Reviving the Fourth Estate, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shoebridge, N. 2011, Newspapers aim to tell it straight, Australian Financial Review, 22 August.
Simons, Margaret 2011, Journalism at the Crossroads: Crisis and Opportunity for the Press, e-Book, Scribe Publications.
Singer, Jane B. 2011, Journalism and digital technologies”, in W. Lowrey and P. J Gade, (Eds.). Changing the News:
The Forces Shaping Journalism in Uncertain Times, New York: Routledge
Sweney, M. 2012, Mail Online editor says site will break even this year, The Guardian, April 20.
Tapsall, S. 2001, Technological talespinning: The media is the message, in S. Tapsall and C. Varley (Eds.),
Journalism: Theory in Practice, South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Tiffen, R. 2010, The press, in S. Cunningham and G Turner (Eds.), Media and Communications in Australia, 3rd
edition, Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.
Weaver, D. (Ed.), 1998, The Global Journalist: News People Around the World, Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press.
43

Journalism at The Speed of Bytes PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Journalism at The Speed of Bytes PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Journalism at the speed of bytes

Australian newspapers in the 21st century

Researched, written and edited by: Research design: what we did . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The authors would like to thank the

This research on the future of newspapers

Cover illustration by Karl Hilzinger

Research design: what we did

Issues #2 Media watching: how digital are the Walkleys?

Background to the crisis

Figure 1: Decline in size of newspaper market, 2007 - 2009

OECD calculations based on data of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Figure 2: Newspaper sales – the real picture

Source: ABC circulation data, ABS population data, MEAA analysis

Issue #3 The continuing importance of newspaper journalism

Declining editorial staff numbers

What we know about the business of digital journalism

Issue #4 Meeting the crisis?

Print sector failure a problem for democracy

Technology and change in journalism

Snapshots of a crisis: Media Alliance Life in

Reinventing journalism is an increasingly strong research theme. Margaret Simons (2011)

Redefining daily journalism

Figure 4: Quality of online journalism

Reconfiguring revenues streams and structures

Issue #5 Why can’t newspapers make digital dollars?

Figure 5: Who controls the website?

Figure 6: The Advertiser’s new newsroom structure

Source: Adelaide Advertiser

Change management priorities and challenges

Figure 7: Newsrooms in transition

Figure 8: A new mindset for journalists

Figure 9: What editors want

New tools and techniques of journalism practice

Issue #7 Not just another business

Dumbing down or democratisation of news

Issue #8 From gatekeepers to conversationalists

Reader engagement strategies and concerns

Figure 10: The hard question

New editorial priorities and challenges

Renewing the concept of public service

Issue #9 The new competition

The characteristics of Australian journalists

“It’s up to us to make sure people realise there is a difference”

Evolving digital journalism standards

Issue #10 Rewarding excellence in digital journalism

What do we know about quality journalism?

The newsroom-training deficit, described to us in detail by both editorial executives and

What could journalists do – perhaps in league with readers – to renew

Anda mungkin juga menyukai