Of course in South Africa, newsrooms have been integrated pretty much all along, more out of staff funding issues and an ignorance of the power and demands of online in South Africa newsrooms, should truth be told (ie, journalists are journalists, they write, why pay more for different print and online teams, think management...). But internationally, such a move will mean job losses and a blurring of the lines between mainstream journalism and citizen journalism that the traditional monolithic media houses are ready to take to cut costs, but that their journalists are not.
The Editors Weblog is a service provided by the World Editors Forum, http://www.worldeditorsforum.org, and the following is an extract from debate and analysis on the issue:
A recent slew of events in the industry has propelled the idea of total print/online integration even further. But what if the industry is leaping too quickly toward the unification of two disparate media? Should integration be treated with a bit more caution?
Several media critics and editors have recently espoused the essentiality of integration to the future of the newsroom. The concept is billed as the end to a perceived battle between traditional reporting and new media.
To back up for a moment, what exactly does integration involve? Aside from the physical interspersing of print desks among online desks (itself a hot-button issue), integration is a blurring of the lines between print and multimedia operations. The move toward integration means print journalists will work on online projects and new media employees will work in print (although mostly, the move will be from print to online). The distinction between "print journalism" and "online journalism" will be no more.
The (pirated) memo sent to Times employees in August 2005 read: "By integrating the newsrooms we plan to diminish and eventually eliminate the difference between newspaper journalists and Web journalists."
The move toward integration at the Times and elsewhere is presented as logical and immediate, with little concern for the inherent differences between print and online. Don't get me wrong: integration can be a very good thing in the increasingly fractured media world. It is also inevitable. What is important in this rapidly changing field is for newsrooms to tread lightly in their transition toward integration.
What follows is a list of concerns with the race toward integration:
When newsrooms restructure, they cut jobs. When newsrooms cut jobs, morale is low and productivity goes down. The Telegraph's recent newsroom integration made redundant 133 jobs. The result: outrage in the newsroom and an impending strike.
The Guardian's Philip Delves Broughton chastises the Telegraph for its careless jump toward integration: "Watching the Telegraph leap into the digital age is like watching a late arrival to a party drinking too much to catch up and then falling over on the dance floor." Broughton explains that other news operations approach new media integration as an "evolution," whereas the Telegraph's dramatic job slicing is perilous.
Proponents of total integration speak to the importance of strong online presence in management. Traditional print editors are no longer seen as capable of controlling a multimedia newsroom.
Steve Outing, an editor with the journalism think tank Poynter Institute, supports placing online editors in charge of both print and online news channels: "Print-hardened top editors don't and perhaps can't fully appreciate the extent of changes that must be made within newspaper companies, so it's time for online editors to step into those top positions."
However, it speaks to reason that these "print-hardened" top editors have a certain experience that can be applied to both print and online. If online news is to be taken seriously, it must advance with the same rigor and journalistic integrity that made newspapers the most trusted form of information. Therefore, traditional print editors at the helm of a newsroom could be the biggest boon to the online wing of the newsroom. These editors could temper the desperate race toward new media with a dose of recoil and perspective.
Additionally, keeping print editors at the top could avoid the type of confusion that results when journalists don't know who is in charge. A recent article in the Guardian posed the question: 'Who wears the trousers at the Telegraph?' In the midst of the recent changes at the paper, the traditional role of head honcho was thrown into question. Although John Bryant has retained his position of editor in chief, editorial managing director Will Lewis has effectively taken control of the newly integrated newsroom.
Champions of integration can make "print thinking" and "online thinking" seem like two different thinking caps, similar and interchangeable. As though print and online were two choices at Starbucks (Frapuccino or Vanilla Latte?).
Michael Riley, editor of Virginia's Roanoke Times, says: "Beyond our online team, we have key players in the newsroom thinking online." On the flip side, Outing stresses the need to apply online thinking to print.
The reality is that these two media have ingrained differences, and cannot necessarily be mastered instantaneously. For some print journalists, the switch to online is not automatic. Call them crusty, call them Luddites, but there are a large number of print journalists who are just not comfortable with the idea of multimedia. And there are young Internet go-getters who are not comfortable with print!
Independent executive Ivan Fallon is not sure that print journalists are equipped for widespread integration: "The difficulty is getting print journalists to adapt to new media - most print journalists do not translate very easily to podcasts or radio or TV. To call upon reporters to turn round and broadcast their stories on the internet and make stories available in real time - I don't see a model for monetising that."
The bottom line is, print and online work are not interchangeable. The changes can be taught, but there must be an educational component to print/online integration. Print and online journalists cannot be expected to jump from one arena to another with the ease of acrobats. The differences between the two must be respected, even lauded. For a newspaper's strength is in its diverse population. Twenty-something bloggers are needed in the same measure as baby boomer Op-Ed columnists.
In August 2005, the Online Journalism Review reported editors' reactions to the August 2005 Times integration. USA Today executive editor Kinsey Wilson stressed the need for newspapers to integrate with caution: "If the goal is to create a stronger, more flexible organization, it only makes sense to move with some care and deliberation in bringing such disparate operations together."
The industry must continue to break down the barriers between print and online. A fragmented newsroom will not progress. But neither will a newsroom plunging too quickly into an unprecedented situation. Hasty, unsound integration is worse than none at all.
Sources: Online Journalism Review, Guardian, Editor and Publisher, Nieman Reports, Poynter.
