Reuters and the Global Content Management Contingent: Optimism About The Future!

“In the future, what do you view as the principal threat to your newspaper’s editorial independence?” Source: The Editor’s Weblog. Given that this was an international poll, it would be interesting to see the results broken down by region. And for rank and file journalists to be surveyed with the same questions, to compare attitudes across the gap.

Survey finds editors ‘positive’ about newspapers’ future (Euractiv). The Reuters survey arrives i nmy inbox as part of a standing Google News Alert on “editorial independence.”

Compare The Latin American Press 2.0: The Echo Chamber Speaks Portunhol for a similar study conducted for the Interamerican Press Association meetings in Cartagena, Colombia.

The WEF’s Web blog actually has quite a thorough analysis of the findings. I would recommend reading that rather than this rewriting of a Reuters press release. It sticks to the hard numbers, avoiding the rhetoric of the technological sublime and “glass half-full” readings of soft quantifications.

The ‘Newsroom Barometer’, a new global survey conducted for the Paris-based World Editors Forum and Reuters, has found that the vast majority of newspaper editors worldwide are optimistic about the future of their newspapers.

Great. Optimism about the future. Thanks be to Prozac.

Is that really the most interesting finding this study has to offer? Is that really the headline-grabber? It strikes me as textbook case of a glittering generality.

They are also divided, it seems to me, over (1) whether the Internet is going to revolutionize their work or not, and (2) whether media owners are going to succeed in their war on editorial independence, as in the Fox News-Monsanto case.

On which see my Kill the Umpire: A Big Think.

Released on 27 March 2007, the survey by Zogby International found that:

• 40% of editors believe that online will be the most common way to read the news ten years from now;
• 35% believe that the print format will reign supreme ["reign supreme"? does that mean "be the most common say to read the news"? And what do the other 25% believe?--Ed.];
• two-thirds believe that opinion and analysis pages will grow in importance [to whom? --Ed.];
• half are convinced that the quality of journalism will improve [and half do not --Ed.], and;
• half believe that shareholders and advertisers present a threat to editorial independence [and half do not?].

Ah, but how many optimists on journalistic quality also believe that editorial independence is threatened by advertisers and owners?

And most importantly: How many say that they see no threat to their editorial independence in their future?

Take the case of Thailand, with its military government: Need for independent TV station is greater than ever (The Nation, Thailand, March 27). Discuss.

The survey of 435 editors-in-chief, deputy editors and other senior news executives from around the world, around half of whom are from Europe, demonstrates an industry in transition, but one that is rapidly adapting to the new media environment.

Define “optimism about the future” in such a way that we should not consider it a glittering generality?

An overwhelming number of respondents – 85% – said that they were very optimistic or somewhat optimistic about the future of their newspaper. Even among newspapers whose circulation decreased over the past five years, 80% of respondents remained optimistic.

How many were “very optimistic”? How many “somewhat”? Was optimism measured on a scale, such as 1-5 or 1-10?

Meanwhile, eight out of ten respondents saw online and new media as “a welcome addition”.

A welcome addition to what?

Those with high volume web traffic — more than 200,000 unique visitors per day – are more likely to view new media positively, but the majority of editors at newspapers with modest traffic or no web sites also viewed new media positively.

Whatever.

“Eighty-five percent of senior news executives see a rosy future for their newspaper, and it’s quite a surprise,” said Bertrand Pecquerie, director of the World Editors Forum (WEF), the organisation of the World Association of Newspapers that represents senior newsroom personnel.

In other words, newsroom managers.

Is there a WAN organization that represents “junior newsroom personnel” — i.e., newsroom labor?

Mr. Pecquerie

most recently … was General Secretary of the French government’s Best Practices Agency (Agence des Bonnes Pratiques) which promoted good administrative and public service practices in local and national government. Mr Pecquerie, 47, also brings an extensive background in online publishing to the WEF. He was Director of World Media Live, a subsidiary of Vivendi Universal specialising in cultural websites. He has also been a professor of history and communication at the University of Paris and was an adviser to the President of the French National Assembly on educational and cultural matters.

I do not see anything in his resumé that indicates that Mr. Pecquerie ever worked as a journalist or managed a news operation.

He is a syndication expert and a publisher, not an information services production expert.

He has the CV, in a word, of a content manager who dances the quango tango. And he talks like one, too.

So why is he not head of the World Publishers Forum? Since when did editors become publishers, and vice versa?

“Editors recognise competition from online sources and free papers, and in turn are making efforts to adapt to 21st century readership,” he added. “They know how to effectively make the transition to online journalism without reducing editorial quality. Editors-in-chief realise that content matters more than ever and cutting newsroom resources is not at all an effective solution: the reshaping of news will take place with journalists, rather than at their expense.”

On how that is working out at the New York Times, e.g., see, e.g., “The Sweet Teat of Junket Whoredom”: The Public Editor on “Fighting Toadies”.

“Twenty-first century readership” — as though the Internet has rendered the Latin alphabet, another writing systems, obsolete as a vehicle for seeding human wetware with semes.

How are we going to get our news in the 21st century? Telepathy?

This optimism builds on deep changes in the way news is consumed. “Many editors [how many? --Ed.] view news as a ‘conversation’ with readers rather than a ‘lecture’ from journalists, and the perceived increase in the importance of analysis and opinion pages shows newspaper editors realize that they must change their content offering in order to survive and prosper,” Villa added.

More opinon, fewer facts to base them on?

Look: If only 40% believe that “most news” will be consumed online a decade from now, but 85% are optimistic to some degree, how many of the optimists can be said to be basing their optimism on “deep changes in the way that news is consumed”?

News is still going to be consumed using the eyes, ears, and brain, is it not?

Or has Reuters perfected Smellovision?

How many would agree, by the way, with the notion that news is consumed rather than used?

That it is a commodity or product rather than a service?

The results of the Newsroom Barometer survey were released at a news conference at Reuters headquarters in London on 27 March. The Newsroom Barometer, a partnership between WEF, Zogby and Reuters, will be conducted annually to assess changes in attitudes and strategies in newsrooms around the world.

I did not read anything in this write-up about strategies.

Just attitudes. Optimisms about futures and eagernesses to join utopian revolutions.

More later.