Categories: OLD Media Moves

The hamster wheel in business newsrooms

Dean Starkman of Columbia Journalism Review takes aim Tuesday at the effect of asking business journalists to do more daily reporting and less investigative work and has some numbers to back up his argument that this hurts the ability to do in-depth pieces.

Starkman writes, “‘We give them three times as many things that are completely unimportant,’ fumes a Wall Street Journal reporter. Clearly, this whiner is exaggerating—but not by much. According to a CJR tally using the Factiva database owned by the paper’s parent, News Corp., the Journal’s staff a decade or so ago produced stories at a rate of about 22,000 a year, all while doing epic, and shareholder-value-creating, work, like bringing the tobacco industry to heel. This year, the Journal staff produced almost as many stories — 21,000 — in the first six months. The hamster creep started in 2000, with a spike to 26,000, and story counts have risen more or less steadily since, topping out at 38,000 in 2008, dropping a bit last year, and resuming a record-setting pace this year. By the way, this count does not include Web-only material, blogs, NewsHub, etc., which the staff also produces, so the figures in the chart above are conservative.

“Meanwhile, the number of journalists producing those stories has shrunk. The International Association of Publishers’ Employees Local 1096, which represents a substantial part of the newsroom (though probably less than half; it doesn’t count staff outside the U.S. and Canada, or editors above a certain level, for instance) says the number of its covered Journal staffers dropped 13 percent, from 323 in 2000 to 281 in 2008. (A Wall Street Journal spokeswoman declined to provide a headcount; a News Corp. reorganization last year blurred the distinction between WSJ staff and the company’s wire reporters.) Story production in the same period rose 46 percent. The decline in unionized reporters in that period can be fairly extrapolated to the broader newsroom. So given the rise in story count, output jumped 69 percent per IAPE staffer (though others, mostly Dow Jones newswire reporters, would have contributed to the Journal’s total story count). It’s enough to make a chicken-processing-plant manager proud. But in the news business, as in the chicken business, there is a point of diminishing returns, and we passed it around 2002. This is basic physics: more stories divided by less staff equals scrawnier chickens. Respectfully, Mr. Murdoch, you are wrong—but you aren’t alone.

“This is not to say the Wheel is universal, even within organizations. The Journal let its reporters go deep with its recent Internet-privacy series, and has been rewarded with Pulitzer-caliber work. Clearly, some reporters still have time to make a phone call before they tweet.”

View Comments

Joey says:
September 14, 2010 at 4:20 pm
And does Starkman provide any insight into how newspapers would make ends meet financially while doing God's work?
More stories means more material posted online, which means more opportunity for online revenue. It also means more opportunity to reach more readers the old-fashioned way: printed paper delivered to the front door. Doing so with fewer reporters helps make ends meet all the more.
What happens to the investigative pieces? That information is still valuable, so it still gets created-- but the business model of newspaper publishing isn't feasible for it economically. So people who want that intelligence hire private market research firms, who do that same work at higher cost and not for public circulation.
That's why a recruiter just called me, asking if I'd go work for a policy analysis group-- doing exactly the same work I've done before, but for a private audience.