Journalists seek more training.
It's confirmed: Journalists want training, especially young journalists, those with less than ten years of experience, who say overwhelmingly—82 percent of them—that they would personally benefit "very much" from additional training.
Broadcast journalists are also standouts: Journalists working in TV are more likely—at 71 percent—to say they'd benefit "very much" from training than journalists from any other medium.
Key questions raised by the report: a chance to join the conversation
· Why does leadership training generate far more demand than any other kind? What is it about that makes it so crucial?
· Why are broadcast journalists more interested in training than their peers in other media? Why don't broadcast newsrooms offer as much in-house training?
· Can training support a stronger culture of ethics and journalism values? Can it help prevent scandals of plagiarism and fabrication?
Introduction
Mae Cheng, an assistant city editor at Newsday and president of the Asian American Journalists Association, thinks earlier and better training could have rescued at least two lost days in her career.
“I was covering the 2000 U.S. Census,” she says. “Before I had any computer-aided reporting training, I got this big map of New York City and I went around the office collecting different colored pushpins, marking the response rates to the Census. I had no idea there was mapping software that could do it in 30 seconds, and other people in the newsroom didn’t know either.
“When I later got CAR training and learned about Excel and mapping software, I kicked myself. I killed a day getting pushpins and another day pushing them into my map.”
Journalists, whether working in print, broadcast or online, want to learn to do their jobs better and smarter.A new study about journalism training, conducted by Urban & Associates, Inc. for The Poynter Institute and News University in 2004, builds on the 2002 study by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and the National Council of Journalism Organizations. It says 95 percent of print journalists and 96 percent of broadcast journalists seek more training.That’s up from 89 percent of journalists surveyed in the Knight study.
Results indicate they seek a range of skills and are interested in various forms of learning, including a yearning for more access to e-learning. They want to grow to improve their performance in their current jobs.
“We knew that journalists need and want training, but the appetite for professional development was greater than we expected,” says Karen Brown Dunlap, president of The Poynter Institute for Media Studies in St. Petersburg, Fla. “Journalists face complicated issues and increased time pressures, sometimes in an environment that provides fewer resources, yet they are determined to produce compelling reports. Training helps.”
The demand is especially high among newer professionals, those with less than ten years experience. While ninety-five percent of respondents said they would benefit from additional training and professional development, respondents under 45 years of age, and those working in journalism for ten years or less, are more likely to perceive the benefits of additional training. Cheng said these results sound similar to what she has heard from AAJA members.
“The findings in this study reflect what we found when we polled our members about what they want from our organization,” Cheng says. “This has been a huge impetus for me to add more value to our membership by adding more training for students and starting journalists, and especially for mid-career members. They, too, still want to learn. Training needs to go on throughout a career.”
The Poynter/NewsU study is aimed at two different constituencies. It is intended to move news organizations that have been reluctant to send people to training. And it will be used by training organizations that will work with those same news organizations.
“We are delighted with this,” says Drew Davis, president and executive director of the American Press Institute in Washington, D.C. “We think this almost perfectly matches the mission of API and validates the things we tell newspaper executives in planning their training and validates our planning.”
Howard Finberg, interactive learning faculty member for The Poynter Institute and project director of News University says, “The Poynter/NewsU study confirms that not only was everything that the Knight Foundation study determined is true, it’s doubly true.”
“It’s another cry to have news organizations put training higher up on their agendas, and not cut the training budget at the first drop in the economic conditions.”
What Hinders Training
What stands between journalists and more training?
Time.
Money.
Accessibility.
“Even when money is not the issue, time is a major factor in decisions about training,” Finberg says.
“Who has time to train in a world where people are just so busy, where staffs are reduced, where both parents work and single parents are often working and where child care is a struggle and many people are starting to care for aging parents as well? For a parent to be gone for even three days is a logistical challenge. The challenge for newsrooms and training organizations is to find innovative ways to meet training needs.”
All survey respondents were asked about their experience with 19 different types of training programs offered within their industry. While clearly not an exhaustive list of all available training, the pattern mirrored that of previous studies. The most frequently-attended seminars or workshops were in-house sessions. Over 81 percent said they had attended one, 55 percent of them in the past year. Training programs offered by press associations were second with 66 percent having attended.
In addition, Poynter/NewsU analyzed three segments of the consumer marketplace – heavy users of training (respondents who’ve attended 7 or more training programs), medium users (4-6) and light users (1-3).
Respondents were presented with 15 different factors and asked how much each would influence their decision to attend a training seminar. Overall, practical content is the primary motivator, with significant proportions of respondents noting that these were “very important” factors:
Acquiring skills to improve performance in their current job (92 percent)
Their personal interest in the seminar/workshop topic (68 percent)
Applicability of the training to organization’s needs (54 percent).
Cost (tuition, accommodations, travel) was a close second behind applicability, mentioned as “very important” by about half of respondents, followed by two additional dimensions of utility:
The ability of the course to help advance a career, and
The opportunity to meet/network with industry professionals.
No other factor—course length, location, faculty, or even recommendations from supervisors—was seen as “very important” by more than one-third of respondents.
“What we would like to see,” joked Skip Foster, editor of North Carolina’s Shelby Star, “is an army of experts who for free will come on-site and personally guide our people for a year.”
While that may not be possible any time soon, 53 percent of respondents reported that their company usually paid all costs associated with a training program. Overall, 14 percent said they paid the costs for training themselves ( the proportion was higher among those working in the broadcast industry). On average, however, 76 percent of the total costs of professional training are borne by the company. A similar distribution is seen when the resource examined is time rather than money: 47 percent of respondents were trained fully on the company’s time, 13 percent on their own time, with an average of 73 percent of the time necessary for preparation, training and travel contributed by the company.
Cheng doesn’t believe it matters in many situations whether a company pays 50 percent or 100 percent of a training program’s costs.
“Once a company finally pays for training,” she says, “it may be the tenth or twentieth time a person asked for it.”
Eighteen different training topics were presented to respondents, who were asked how useful each would be to them. Six were evaluated as “very useful” by more than one-third of respondents, with an interest in Leadership topping the list:
Leadership strategies (61 percent)
Newsroom management skills (55 percent)
Legal issues such as privacy/libel (45 percent)
Ethics and values in journalism (45 percent)
Writing/reporting techniques (41 percent), and
Multimedia news storytelling (33 percent).
Dori Maynard, president of the Maynard Institute for Journalism Education in Oakland, Ca., focuses on the need for leadership training.
“In this industry we don’t do a good job of training.” she says. “The newsroom approach is often, ‘Hey, you’re a good reporter, you could be an editor.’ And if the reporters-turned-editors perform well, they say, ‘I don’t know why anyone else needs training; look how well I did without it!’
“We need our leaders to understand the need for development and execute. The tasks of journalists and media leaders are so much more complicated today.” The Maynard Institute is a 27-year-old organization devoted to training journalism managers of color.
All types of skills need improvement.
“I’d like to see more training in something as fundamental as note- taking,” Cheng says. “I’ve seen reporters come in without quotes because they can’t write fast enough or their tape recorder died. Even senior journalists would find that useful. And while newspaper reporters could once get by with just words, now they have to be more visual. Even if they don’t want to go on that side, I think it would help to understand graphics better. There is so much we should be getting training on.”
Training in specialized topics (e.g.: broadcast reporting, typography) were rated as “very useful” training by respondents employed in those industries, but overall, there are no significant differences in this pattern by respondents of different ages or tenures in journalism.
The 47 percent of respondents who said training in a specific beat or content area would be useful to them were then asked to record what topic would interest them. A subset of topics mentioned frequently includes:
Beats—criminal justice, education, health, environment, lifestyle, religion/values;
Skills—computer-assisted reporting, investigative reporting; and
Management—mentoring/coaching, budgeting/resource planning.
“It’s important to continue teaching new skills,” Cheng says. “When I started a few years ago, there wasn’t much emphasis on computer-assisted reporting. Now you become more accomplished by being able to work through Excel. Or do word searches. The technology changes the way we report stories and I think we should be given training for that.”
Foster says content, not price, would be his first consideration in judging potential training opportunities for his staff.
“If I’m considering training, I’m not even gonna get past issues of content,” Foster says. “If I’m looking for help in using active verbs in my copy — to make something up — if what’s offered is ‘Juggling and Sword-swallowing,’ of course, content is more important than price. Content is the definition of what you’re looking for.”
Once he finds the right content, Foster is ready to deal.
“Our strategy is, let’s find something we can buy for our people,” he says. “The price shouldn’t be as big a factor as it is. But we are in the real world. I don’t think newspapers are unique in trying to balance the realities and need for training with the annual budget. If we can’t buy people a steak, let’s buy them a hamburger. That may still be more than they expected to get.”
Foster is a proponent of expanding programs such as the Southern Newspaper Publishers Association’s traveling campus, as well as low-priced training programs offered by many regional press associations. “It lets me hit everybody with a little bit, as opposed to a few people flying to St. Petersburg and going to a Poynter seminar. I have gotten so much out of my two Poynter experiences. I wish that for everybody. But I can register five people for training within driving distance or spend the same amount on one air ticket alone. The press associations have been sensitive to this, of how can we give cost-effective training. It’s not as good as if they went to Reston for a week, but it’s better than none. And in our newsroom, more people have gotten training in the last couple years than did in the past.”
With the obvious exception of industry-specific skills, there is remarkable homogeneity in the answers of all respondents to the survey. While this is not unreasonable (given the relatively confined demographics of professional journalists), the fact that there are more similarities than differences in the nature of training needs means that professional development organizations have many opportunities to impact journalism excellence, and that they must be prudent in prioritizing and focusing their efforts in areas where they can showcase their unique competence, and preserve their strong brands.
“We’re not in competition with other organizations on the subject of training because the need is that great,” says Poynter President Dunlap. “I see about 10 steps individuals and news organizations can take in professional development, everything from brown bag lunches to one-year or multi-year programs. We need online courses, regional seminars and workshops, and other off-site training, one day, week-long and extended programs such as Neiman—if the industry is going to perform at the level it needs to perform. We need all of it.”
Broadcast
Seventy-one percent of broadcast journalists surveyed by Poynter/NewsU “very much” saw the benefit of additional training and another 25 percent “somewhat” perceived the benefits—96 percent in all; these numbers mirrored the opinions of broadcast executives as well.
The numbers didn’t surprise Deborah Potter, executive director of the Radio & Television News Directors Association & Foundation in Washington, D.C. “I suppose there is a pent-up desire for more training for a couple reasons,” she says. “It’s not commonly offered in-house by broadcast organizations, whereas I think more newspapers do provide it. And there is much less of it to go around for broadcast than print. So it’s supply and demand.”
The issue, she says, is not that more training should be made available.
“The issue is getting support at the corporate level,” Potter says. “And time. And money. A TV station has a smaller staff than a print outlet. So as often as broadcasters may ask to go for training, they don’t get permission. And sometimes they’re not even asking to go because they’re sure they won’t be allowed to.”
E-Learning Potential
For the industry’s nascent e-learning programs, the Poynter/NewsU study provides a reassuring confirmation of need and purpose.
“It validates our belief in e-learning,” Finberg says. “It’s the research evidence that the concept we came up with is valid. The real challenge will be in execution. There is a lot in the study about where we should take e-learning, not just for Poynter, but also on behalf of other journalism organizations.”
Much of the Poynter/NewsU study results go beyond needs for today and look at needs of tomorrow.
Only 18 percent of respondents have had any experience with online education or e-learning, a proportion quite similar to that reported in previous research on professional journalism education. The segments most experienced with online training are individuals employed outside traditional print or broadcast companies, and those with substantial professional training experience.
“It’s interesting that the numbers for online were where they are since such a small number have experienced it,” Peter Bhatia, executive director of The Oregonian, says. “It’s an indicator that more and more people understand that, over the long term, multi-platform delivery of news will be a reality to all of us. Understanding that will be more important with the passage of time.”
When asked how interested they would be in online journalism training, 72 percent of all respondents expressed some interest (32 percent saying they’d be “very interested”). Individuals that live outside the U.S. are particularly interested in online educational opportunities, as are those who are from smaller media organizations.
“I was personally—professionally—stunned when I saw the demand,” Finberg says. “Part of it is that nobody knows yet quite what e-learning is and even fewer had taken an e-learning course. That’s the good news. The challenge is for any organization to come up with courses that meet that high level of expectation. In theory, everybody thinks e-learning is a great thing. We can’t disappoint when they take their first course. That isn’t just a challenge for NewsU and Poynter; that’s a challenge for every organization.”
Respondents were asked the importance of each of 11 potential benefits of e-learning, and more than half of them were identified as “very important” by a majority—suggesting the relative immaturity of expectations of online education. Equal weight is given to the flexibility of access, technical help, one-on-one feedback and low cost, and neither past experience nor degree of interest in online education appears to shape that outlook. When asked to order those attributes, however, a clear winner is flexibility in timing: More than half of all respondents said that the most important motivator stimulating interest in online education is “the ability to take the course whenever your schedule allows.” Currently, then, it appears that the central premise behind potential interest in e-learning is the “time shifting” capacity anticipated by busy journalism professionals.
The AAJA participated in the first NewsU e-learning classes.
“That was really cool for our members,” Cheng says. “We have 2,100 members over 19 chapters. We have members in Africa, Hong Kong, Australia, and England. Our membership is really scattered, but by offering online courses, our people were able to get training without traveling. We had one online student so thankful for this because she just had a baby. The Poynter class was great because they got on whenever they could. It might be daytime here and nighttime wherever they were.”
Almost all respondents answered a question about the primary obstacles to having an effective e-learning experience. While the richness of their ideas cannot be easily captured, it does appear that answers cluster in four major areas. The most frequently-mentioned obstacle to effective e-learning is the perceived lack of the “high-touch” environment of traditional seminars: the one-on-one personal contact available with faculty and other participants. The second and third major clusters of responses had more to do with self-assessment of the respondents than with the attributes of an online seminar: About one-third of the respondents think that time pressures of work and family life—and the discipline required to “make time” for self-directed training—would be a major obstacle to having an effective experience. A significant proportion also perceives that they’re ill-equipped (i.e.: inadequate computer, skills, Internet connection) for satisfactory online learning. Finally, a small proportion doubt whether an online seminar could equal the quality or effectiveness of an in-person training seminar.
Many of these perceived obstacles link to another finding: More than 60 percent of respondents believe they’d be most likely to access online training at home—either after work or on the weekends. While many think they could do the course at work (after the day’s tasks are finished, between other work or during lunch), it’s clear that the segment most interested in e-learning is also most convinced they’d be training on their own time at home.
“Ideally, newsroom managers should embrace e-learning and provide journalists with the time away from the day-to-day chores. Let them do the training as part of their daily routine,” Finberg said. “Allowing a couple hours a week would be a great help in meeting the training needs.”
Fifty-four percent of respondents report that they’d have less than one hour a day to spend with an online training program, and an additional 42 percent report they’d have between one to three hours a day. Respondents who are “very interested” in the concept are more likely to report a higher time capacity than those who are only “somewhat” interested.
News University—this site right here—is a project of the Poynter Institute and is funded by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Its innovative distance-learning programs sharpen journalism skills on the participant’s schedule. NewsU’s courses offer the quality that is Poynter’s trademark at a fraction of the cost, on a schedule that fits with the participant’s work and family commitments. And they don’t replace Poynter seminars. Rather, NewsU’s e-learning modules provide a new form of training that’s more targeted and more flexible than the traditional in-person experience. NewsU offers three kinds of e-learning:
1. Group Seminars. Participants gather in a virtual space, logging in from anywhere, day or night, over the course of several days or several weeks. A faculty member guides the group through new material, moderates discussions, and provides individual feedback.
2. Self-Directed Learning Modules. These are the ultimate in e-learning flexibility: Journalists can start and stop them whenever they like, progressing entirely at their own pace and going back as many times as they want. They make use of interactive Web technology, so they’re much more than mere collections of Web pages.
3. eSeminars. These are live seminars or events broadcast over the Web; participants can tune in from their computer at work or at home and ask questions in real-time. And if they can’t join in live, the seminars are also available as self-directed learning modules.
When asked which kind of training they would prefer—an in-person or online seminar—more than three-quarters of respondents say they’d prefer the former. The minority have had experience with e-learning and are slightly more likely to choose online, but they also prefer in-person seminars.
In the short-term, the concept of e-learning generates a lot of interest among news professionals, especially those that don’t anticipate having easy opportunities to participate in in-person training. Only when potential users can actually see the product (in this case, a handful of online seminar prototypes or, at least, a “catalog” of potential course descriptions) can they make the kind of judgments that can realistically translate into solid metrics of market potential.
“The hunger is really there,” Finberg says. “The question is, ‘What are we really going to do to satisfy the hunger, since it’s unlikely the training dollar spigot will get turned on?’ We’re taking this report about training as a whole and e-learning as a whole and we’re using it. We told the industry that training was important; here’s another study that proves it.”
Finberg says that even if training funds were unlimited, space and available faculty available for on-site programs would still be scarce. There is also the issue of time; most journalism organizations struggle to find enough time for staffs to get away from their jobs and personal lives to travel for training.
“One solution is bring training to them,” Finberg says. “Either in their newsrooms, in more regional short term training sessions, or through the magic of the information age we live in, a.k.a., the Internet.”
Training as Scandal Prevention?
In both the Poynter/NewsU’s survey and the Knight Foundation’s research, legal issues and ethics training were ranked high. The Poynter/NewsU study didn’t directly address whether more training would reduce the incidents of ethical misconduct and plagiarism that have scandalized journalism, but many journalists believe more training will give the industry a shot of prevention.
“We have summer interns who come in to Newsday with degrees in journalism, but they could use continual training,” Cheng says. “I think it helps to keep talking about ethics. Starting reporters come to me and say, ‘I went on an assignment and they offered me dinner. Should I have taken it?’ Or, ‘They offered me gifts, should I take them?’
“I’m looking for an instructor to teach ethics to our members,” Cheng says. “I want something more philosophical because the classes we’ve offered so far have been more skills-oriented.”
Today, there is less formal training in the average newsroom from direct supervisors. “A lot of us can remember editors who taught us,” Dunlap says. “Now editors have other demands, including endless meetings. They don’t see the time to coach. A college professor told me recently that young journalists are leaving because they aren’t being trained; they aren’t learning. We’ve heard this before. They’re not leaving because of salaries, but because they don’t think they are growing.”
Maynard thinks it may be time that the journalism industry starts requiring continuing education programs for its practitioners, much as professional associations from physicians to engineers and insurance agents demand for their members.
“Many industries require you to keep up,” Maynard says. “I think it’s important that we do that. The public’s expectations of the news media have changed. If we aren’t providing people in the industry with the ability to be current, how can business practices stay current in legal and ethical training?”
Bhatia, executive editor of The Oregonian and a past-president of ASNE, thinks most journalists could use a reminder of how ethics and values play out on a daily basis.
“There is a need for a re-emphasis of the importance and value of getting things right and for ethical newsgathering,” he says. “I think training should be part of an overall game plan to wipe this out. It’s time. As an industry we need to address this and not write Jack Kelley and Jayson Blair off as aberrations. Ninety-eight percent of cops and politicians are ethical but it’s that bad two percent that get the headlines. And it’s that bad two percent that’s defining us as well. We have to address it head on.”
What’s Next?
Now that the need for training has been confirmed and further quantified, what's the next step?
“After the study by the Knight Foundation, they launched an information campaign to increase the funds that go into journalism training,” Dunlap says. “Those who care about professional development need to join the campaign.”
Another emphasis likely to be advanced by the Poynter/NewsU study is that if journalists can’t or won’t come to the mountains for training, the mountains must find their way to journalists even more than they do today, both in person and via the Internet.
Regional workshops have been a big success with smaller newspapers. They are an inexpensive draw that allow journalists to get much needed training.
“The problem is when news organizations think that’s all they need,” Dunlap says. “The industry needs the full range of programs.”
Bhatia says that news organizations that can’t budget for big-name, off-site training programs should be more creative. “We’re a newspaper that already has a substantial commitment to training,” Bhatia says. “We engage in a whole range of training, from Spanish classes for staffers to bringing in people from all over the country to talk to us. Even through the tough times of the last few years, we’ve still found ways to keep the level of training opportunities high. For example, by having our best investigative reporters do seminars on FOI or beat development, there remains the opportunity for people to be exposed to good thinking and good talent. We also do in-house awards with outside people serving as judges, and then we have them come in and do seminars. What this survey does is reaffirm what we already believe to be true. Journalists understand there is no such thing as being too good. We should always be committed to expanding our skills sets.”
Poynter and other organizations offer fellowships and seek contributions for scholarships to assist journalists who can’t afford development programs. According to Dunlap, it’s time for print and broadcast organizations to dig deeper into their pockets and supply both the demand and need for enhanced training.
“The study supports the idea that Poynter should no longer subsidize training to the degree it does,” she says. “The news industry needs to pick up a greater share. We need to serve the need but find greater resources.”
Fundraising for news associations has been tough in recent years. But while newspapers aren’t willing to write a check for certain kinds of training, organizations such as AAJA are finding opportunities to partner with news organizations that will host on-site training programs for them. “The St. Paul Pioneer-Press and New York Times are paying for our members to fly in for seminars and workshops,” Cheng says. “AAJA doesn’t make a dime on it, but it’s a great opportunity for our members. Our mid-career members have been able to benefit.”
Another challenge for professional development organizations desiring to benefit from the Poynter/NewsU study will be selling its merits to skeptical or budget-conscious journalism corporations.
“We have to make the bottom-line case that there’s value beyond the intrinsic,” Potter says. “I don’t think there is a radical difference between print and broadcast groups. The argument has to be made to managers and owners that there is a business case for additional training.”
Methodology
The Poynter/NewsU study was designed to provide strategic information in the overall structure of training and professional development needs among journalists and the characteristics of the potential e-learning market.
To accomplish these objectives, two interlocking questionnaires were developed: one to be administered to alumni, focused on evaluations of Poynter, and another for non-alumni that generated detail on the potential for online learning. Both questionnaires contained the same battery of questions on underlying training needs, as well as key questions on the respondent’s interest in e-learning. Because this research was not intended to quantify Poynter’s share of market or competitive position, all aspects of the questionnaire and sample design were oriented toward maximizing the amount of discrete data that could be collected (including a number of opportunities for respondents to provide extensive written responses to open-ended questions), and toward maximizing the sample size and diversity of the respondent pool. As such, the surveys were administered by mail and online: subsuming the desire for a fully representative sample of respondents to the requirement of providing a rich and detailed data set.
Both the mail and online samples were address-specific, with names randomly drawn from two major sources. Poynter’s database of seminar and workshop attendees was the basis for the alumni sample: first it was cleaned of student names (high school and university) and then it was randomly-sampled for both the mail-out and online portion of the survey. (NOTE: All potential respondents outside the U.S. were included in the online survey.) For the non-alumni sample, a set of industry association lists were merged (Poynter’s non-alumni list, Bacon’s, SND, NABJ, NAHJ, IRE, RTNDA, AAJA) and randomly sampled.
In all, 7,004 surveys were mailed out during the weeks of November 17 and 24, 2003, and the online portion commenced with email invitations sent to 5,317 individuals on December 2, 2003. Responses were collected until December 29, 2003. The final sample comprises of 2,552 respondents: 809 Poynter alumni (a 25.4 percent response rate) and 1,743 non-alumni (a 19.1 percent response rate).
In short, 60 percent of the responses were obtained from individuals working in print (daily or weekly newspapers and magazines), 27 percent from those working in broadcast (television and radio) and 13 percent from other related journalistic organizations, including online, trade groups, and news services.
All phases of the research (i.e.: questionnaire and sample design, cleaning/keypunching of the database, transcription and coding of verbatim responses, data tabulation and analysis) were completed by Urban & Associates, Inc. The size of the sample, as well as the strict quality controls imposed at each step of the process, mean that on sampling procedures, interviewing and data processing, mean that at the total market level, the percentages contained in this report are statistically accurate to within +/- 2 to 3 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.
