JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
Neil Thurman, Alessio Cornia, and Jessica Kunert
RISJ Report | Journalists in the UK Neil Thurman, Alessio Cornia, and Jessica Kunert
PART OF THE WORLDS OF JOURNALISM STUDY
NEIL THURMAN, ALESSIO CORNIA, AND JESSICA KUNERT
SUPPORTED BY
JOURNALISTS
IN THE UK
© 2016 Reuter
s Institute for the Study of Journalism
DOI: 10.60625/risj-83nm-gr64
...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Foreword …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5
About the Authors
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6
Acknowledgements
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6
Executive Summary
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7
...............................................................................................................................................................................................
1. Personal Characteristics and Diversity ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9
Neil Thurman
2. Employment Conditions
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15
Neil Thurman
3. Working Routines
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 24
Neil Thurman
4. Journalists’ Role in Society
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 30
Jessica Kunert and Neil Thurman
5. Journalism and Change
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 35
Neil Thurman
6. Influences on Journalists’ Work
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41
Alessio Cornia and Neil Thurman
7. Journalists’ Trust in Institutions
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 47
Jessica Kunert and Neil Thurman
8. Ethics and Standards
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 51
Alessio Cornia and Neil Thurman
9. Methodology
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 56
Neil Thurman
...............................................................................................................................................................................................
References ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 60
...............................................................................................................................................................................................
4 4REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
Journalism plays a pivotal role in keeping us informed and
critically aware. But in a period when digital communications
technologies are violently disrupting news industry business
models there is confusion and debate as to whether the
result is less journalism, worse journalism or more and better
journalism delivered through a more diverse array of media,
including social media.
Given the importance of journalism and the current fluidity of
the industry’s commercial circumstances, it is very good to have
an up-to-date insight into what journalists themselves have to
say about some of these matters.
Building upon the work of a previous UK survey in 2012 and
in collaboration with the global Worlds of Journalism project
designed to produce comparative data on journalists’ opinions
and attitudes, this Reuters Institute report illuminates essential
ground. It is based upon a survey of 700 of the UK’s almost
64,000 professional journalists.
Some of its conclusions are familiar but still stark: the chronic
failure to achieve even reasonable levels of ethnic diversity
in journalism; and the very strong flow of women into the
profession – they form a majority among young journalists but
are still very much a minority in the senior ranks.
Particularly fascinating are the journalists’ answers on ethical
issues, which emerge as mostly in line with ocial codes of
practice. Journalists say that their behaviour is aected more
than anything else by ethical guidelines and professional codes
of practice. This suggests that the Leveson era may have
made more impact than is generally acknowledged. Since a
majority of journalists also believe that their profession has lost
credibility over time, it might even indicate the start of a fight-
back.
Pleasing also, to me at least, is the historically rooted hierarchy
of values which emerges from the journalists questioned. At the
very summit, they place first the provision of reliable information
and, second, holding power to account. In third place comes
entertainment, which I also interpret positively: dull reporting,
pedestrian writing and predictable analysis undermine the first
two values.
Journalists, the data show, continue to be better and better
educated, but for most of them pay remains relatively modest.
The best paid jobs are still in television, where disruptive forces
bearing on news are weaker.
The proportion of journalists working in newspapers has fallen
sharply, but disagreement about definitions makes it unsettled
whether overall in the digital age we have more or less
journalism and more or fewer journalists. The authors estimate
that there are now 30,000 journalists working wholly or partly
online, but many bloggers are excluded from this count, along
with others whose journalistic identity is complex.
Digital influences also mean that journalists have more data
about audience responses to their work; it remains unclear to
what extent they feel bullied by this into the clickbait game,
rather than feeling that they can use the data to make better,
independent decisions about how to provide a service the
audience values.
For me, the overall impression delivered by the survey is
positive. In spite of the most turbulent period of change in
the news industry for a century, there is a read-out here of
core purpose and conviction among British journalists. As
business models start to settle down in the third decade of the
internet and new types of proprietor establish themselves, this
persuades me that the outlook is more promising than is often
suggested.
FOREWORD
Ian Hargreaves
Professor of Digital Economy, Cardi University
Former Editor, the Independent; Deputy Editor, the Financial Times;
Editor, The New Statesman; and Director BBC News and Current Aairs
4 4 5/
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dr Neil Thurman is a Professor of Communication with an emphasis on computational journalism in the Department of Communication
Studies and Media Research, LMU Munich. He is a VolkswagenStiftung Freigeist Fellow.
Dr Alessio Cornia is a Research Fellow at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford.
Dr Jessica Kunert is a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Communication Studies and Media Research, LMU Munich.
The authors would like to thank Mike Bromley, Sophie Cubbin, Richard Fletcher, Ed Grover, Thomas Hanitzsch, John Hobart, David Levy,
Corinna Lauerer, Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, Alex Reid, Jane Robson, Nina Steindl, and the whole Worlds of Journalism Study team.
Proposals for collaboration on further publications based on this survey data should be directed to Dr Neil Thurman <neil.thurman@iw.
lmu.de>.
6REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is based on a survey conducted in December 2015
with a representative sample of 700 UK journalists. Our analysis
of the survey data and of over a hundred other relevant sources
of information has produced numerous findings.
On UK journalists’ personal characteristics and diversity:
• Although women make up a relatively high proportion of the
profession, they are less well remunerated than men and
are under-represented in senior positions.
• Journalism is now fully ‘academised’. Of those journalists
who began their careers in 2013, 2014, and 2015, 98% have
a bachelor’s degree and 36% a master’s. While this trend is
helping to correct historical gender imbalances, it may have
other, undesirable, consequences for the socio-economic
diversity of the profession.
• Journalists are less religious than the general population
and a smaller proportion claim membership of the Muslim,
Hindu, and Christian faiths.
• UK journalism has a significant diversity problem in terms of
ethnicity, with black Britons, for example, under-represented
by a factor of more than ten.
• About half of journalists take a left-of-centre political stance,
with the remaining half split between the centre and the
right-wing. Right-of-centre political beliefs increase with rank.
On UK journalists’ employment conditions:
• 20% of journalists have gross yearly earnings of less than
£19,200, likely to be at or below the ‘living wage’ for many.
• 83% of journalists in their mid to late twenties earn less than
£29,000, an income that makes getting on the property
ladder a significant challenge.
• 27% of journalists engage in other paid work.
• Most journalists (54%) work in a single medium (TV, radio,
print, or online) and working across multiple media provides
no clear financial benefit.
• A third of journalists working for UK ‘national’ newspapers
now consider their outlet’s reach to be transnational.
On UK journalists’ working routines:
• Since 2012 the proportion of journalists in the UK working
in newspapers has fallen from 56% to 44%, while the
proportion working online has risen from 26% to 52%.
• We estimate there are now 30,000 journalists in the UK
who work wholly or partly online. However, those working
exclusively online are less well paid than journalists who
work only in newspapers.
• 53% of journalists are specialists, with the most populous
beats being business, culture, sport, and entertainment.
There are few politics, science, or religious specialists.
• UK journalists typically produce or process ten news items
a week, although that number doubles for journalists who
work exclusively online.
On UK journalists’ role in society:
• Journalists most commonly believe that their role is to
provide accurate information, to hold power to account,
and to entertain. However, few see importance in roles
that are more directly connected with politics, like being an
adversary of the government.
• Radio journalists, rather than journalists working online, feel
most strongly that their role should include letting people
express their views.
• 45% of UK journalists see it as very or extremely important
to provide news that attracts the largest audience, a higher
proportion than was found in a US survey in 2008–9.
On journalism and change:
• Twice as many UK journalists believe that their freedom to
make editorial decisions has decreased over time as believe
it has increased. We argue this could be a result of the
increasing influence of audience research and pressure to
‘keep up with the competition’, with negative consequences
for the diversity of news output.
• A large majority believe time for researching stories has
decreased and the influence of profit-making pressures, PR
activity, and advertising considerations has strengthened.
6 7/
• Most UK journalists believe their profession has lost
credibility over time.
• UK journalists overwhelmingly believe that the importance
of technical skills and the influence of social media
platforms have increased over time.
On influences on journalists’ work:
• UK journalists believe that ethics, media laws and
regulation, editorial policy, their editorial supervisors, and
practical limitations exercise the greatest influence over
their work.
• Although UK journalists ascribe little influence to state
ocials, politicians, pressure groups, business people, and
PR, a large majority acknowledge the influence of news
sources; and the most frequently cited sources in news
stories are representatives of these very groups.
• Most journalists think that owners, advertising
considerations, and profit expectations have little influence
over their work, although these sources of influence are
rarely experienced directly but rather through organisational
constraints.
On UK journalists’ trust in institutions:
• Contrary to stereotype, UK journalists appear to be more
trusting in general terms, and no less trusting of politicians
and government, than the general population.
• UK journalists show more trust in the judiciary and the
courts than they do in their own profession, the news media.
• Journalists have less trust in religious leaders and trade
unions than they do in Parliament, the police, and the
military, in part, we argue, because of their reliance on these
latter institutions as sources of information.
On ethics and standards:
• There is close correspondence between UK journalists’
views on ethics and their professional codes of practice.
However, they are more likely to find justification for
ethically contentious practices, such as paying sources, than
journalists in the United States.
• Rank and file journalists in the UK push ethical boundaries
more than their managers, and 25% of all journalists believe
it is justified, on occasion, to publish unverified information.
8 8REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
PERSONAL
CHARACTERISTICS
AND DIVERSITY
NEIL THURMAN
Our survey gathered a range of information on UK journalists’
personal characteristics. Basic data on the age spread and
gender balance of our sample is reported in Section 9. Here in
Section 1 we focus in detail on the dierences between male
and female journalists in employment status, income, rank, and
editorial freedom; and how the proportions of men and women
entering the profession are changing. This section also reports
on journalists’
• education;
• religious aliation and depth of belief;
• ethnicity; and
• political aliation.
In addition, our survey asked journalists about the length of
time they had spent working in the profession. We have used
this data in various ways in this study, for example to find out
from those who have been in the profession for at least five
years how they feel journalism has changed over time (see
Section 5). For the record, the journalists who completed our
survey had between one and 54 years of work experience, with
an average of 18.5 years. About a quarter had less than ten
years’ work experience.
1.1 GENDER
Our results show that 45% of UK journalists are women, a
similar figure to that found in other surveys (see Section
9.5). This figure is relatively high compared with some other
professions. For example, only 31% of practising barristers (Bar
Standards Board, 2014) and 33% of medical consultants (GMC,
2015) are female. It does not, however, tell the whole story. We
also need to look at the levels of influence and recognition that
women in journalism have.
Starting with employment status, we see that according to
our survey women are slightly more likely to be employed on
part-time or freelance contracts than men. However, women
and men who are regular employees rather than freelancers
are almost exactly as likely as each other to be on a permanent
rather than a temporary contract: 96% of men against 98% of
women (see Figure 1.1a).
FIGURE 1.1a: EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF MALE
AND FEMALE JOURNALISTS IN THE UK,
DECEMBER 2015.
Figure 1.1a:
E
mployment status of
m
ale and female
j
ournalists in the UK,
D
ecember 2015.
70%
77%
9%
5%
18%
16%
2%
3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Women (n = 314) Men (n = 381)
Other
Freelance
Part-time
Full-time
To compare income across the sexes we focused on full-time
employees only, and excluded journalists who also worked in
other paid activities at the same time. The results show that a
significantly higher proportion of women journalists earn less
than £2,401/month. About half of women are in this salary band
compared with a third of men. Although the same proportion of
male and female journalists earn between £2,401 and £4,000/
month, men are considerably more likely to have a salary of
over £4,000/month (see Figure 1.1b overleaf). We can clearly
see then that the salaries of full-time female journalists are
weighted towards the bottom of the salary scale, whereas
men’s salaries are more evenly spread across the full spectrum
of earnings.
1
1
It should be noted that the female journalists in our sample were, on average, five years younger than their male colleagues which is likely to explain some, but not
all, of this income disparity.
8 9/ 8
This fi nding chimed with one young, female journalist working
at a national news publication who completed our survey.
She told us that ‘there are a few men who do the same job
as me and are paid considerably more despite having less
experience’. In her view one of the barriers to equal pay was
a lack of transparency: ‘you don’t know how big the gap is
because there’s huge secrecy around how much everyone is
paid’ (personal communication, 23 February 2016).
FIGURE 1.1b: GROSS MONTHLY SALARIES OF
FULL-TIME MALE AND FEMALE JOURNALISTS
IN THE UK, DECEMBER 2015 (n = 411).
50%
34%
29%
31%
22%
36%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Women Men
<=£2,400 £2,401–£4,000 >£4,001
Notes: Journalists who said they also worked in other paid activities outside
journalism were excluded. The average age of female journalists in our
survey was 40 against 45 for men. This age di erence is likely to explain
some, but not all, of the income disparity between the sexes.
On the question of seniority, our survey shows that although
similar proportions of men and women work as rank and fi le
journalists, women appear to get stuck in junior management
roles, whereas men are more likely to progress into senior
management (see Figure 1.1c). The female journalist we
spoke to felt that part of the explanation was the way existing
structures were inclined to replicate themselves: ‘there is a
tendency for senior management to be predominantly male
and for them to promote men as well’ (personal communication,
23 February 2016).
In addition to rank, our survey provided us with other ways of
measuring di erences in the relative levels of infl uence wielded
by the sexes. We asked journalists how much freedom they
had in selecting news stories, in deciding which aspects of a
story should be emphasised, and how often they participated
in editorial meetings and newsroom coordination. There was
no di erence in the frequency with which men and women
felt that they participated in editorial coordination, for example
attending editorial meetings or assigning reporters. However,
men said that they had a little more freedom both in selecting
news stories and in deciding which aspects of a story to
emphasise (see Figure 1.1d).
FIGURE 1.1d: COMPARATIVE FREEDOM
OF MALE AND FEMALE JOURNALISTS IN
THE UK IN EDITORIAL DECISION-MAKING,
DECEMBER 2015.
Figure 1.1d:
Comparative
freedom of male
and female
journalists in the
UK in editorial
decision-making,
December 2015.
69%
74%
52%
75%
81%
53%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Have 'complete' or
'a great deal' of
freedom in selecting
news stories (n = 689)
Have 'complete' or
'a great deal' of freedom
in deciding which aspects
of story should be
emphasised (n = 689)
Participate in editorial
coordination 'always' or
'very often' (n = 691)
Women
Men
Note: Journalists at the start and end of their careers are not shown because those with less than 6 years professional experience are unlikely to have had
signifi cant opportunities for promotion and those with more than 29 years are more likely to be working part-time and in a freelance capacity (see section 2.5).
23%
30%
37%
41%
39%
41%
36%
31%
21%
0%
20%
40%
60%
6–10 (n = 44) 11–20 (n = 110) 21–29 (n = 70)
Figure 1.1c: Rank of male and female journalists in the UK by years of professional
e
xperience, December 2015.
17%
21%
18%
35%
50%
55%
48%
29%
28%
0%
20%
40%
60%
6–10 (n = 56) 11–20 (n = 94) 21–29 (n = 51)
Senior managers Junior managers Rank and file journalists
Women
Men
Note: Journalists at the start and end of their careers are not shown because those with less than 6 years professional experience are unlikely to have had
significant opportunities for promotion and those with more than 29 years are more likely to be working part-time and in a freelance capacity (see section 2.5).
FIGURE 1.1c: RANK OF MALE AND FEMALE JOURNALISTS IN THE UK BY YEARS OF
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, DECEMBER 2015.
10
REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
Our survey provides very limited data about any dierences
between the sexes in terms of the ‘beats’ or subject areas they
cover. This is because only about half of our respondents say
they specialise in a particular beat. If we look at the specialisms
of those who do, all we can say with any certainty is that a
lot more men cover sport than women: by a factor of about
ten. Analysing the relative proportions of men and women at
outlets with dierent geographic markets shows that gender
diversity is worse at news organisations that are ‘local’ and
‘transnational’ in reach but better at those targeted at ‘regional’
and ‘national’ audiences.
So far our survey has painted a mixed picture of equality in
influence and recognition for female journalists in the UK.
Whilst men and women are approaching equality in security
of employment and in their autonomy at work, women are
paid less and are less likely to progress to senior levels
of management. What then of the future? Are there any
indications in our data that women will be better represented in
senior positions in times to come? While it does not follow that
having at least as many women as men entering the profession
will result, eventually, in more equality in senior roles, it is
a start. If we look at the profile of journalists entering the
profession in recent years we can see that two-thirds of those
starting their careers very recently – in the last two years – are
women, almost exactly the reverse of the gender balance of
journalists who have been working for more than 30 years (see
Figure 1.1e). We can only hope that the high numbers of women
among the recent entrants to the profession will receive fair
remuneration and rise to positions of influence more easily than
did the generations that preceded them.
FIGURE 1.1e: PROPORTIONS OF MALE
AND FEMALE JOURNALISTS IN THE UK BY
YEARS OF WORKING EXPERIENCE IN THE
PROFESSION, DECEMBER 2015 (n = 682).
Figure 1.1e:
P
roportions of male
a
nd female
j
ournalists in the UK
b
y years of working
e
xperience in the
p
rofession, December
2
015
(
n
= 682).
65%
50%
52%
46%
42%
33%
36% 50% 48% 54% 58% 67%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
<=2 3–5 6–10 11–20 21+ 30+
Men Women
Note: Data only include journalists who were working in the profession in December
2015.
Note: Data only include journalists who were working in the profession in
December 2015.
1.2 EDUCATION
Traditionally, journalism has been a profession that has
accommodated entrants without specialist training and, indeed,
without any university-level education. In 2012 Jonathan Baker,
the then Head of the BBC College of Journalism, wrote that
to get into the BBC as a journalist ‘a university degree is not
required’, adding that ‘many of the BBC’s top journalists did
not have a university education’ (Baker, 2012). While saying
a degree was ‘not required’, Baker did concede that the
qualification gave applicants ‘a definite advantage’. This view
is in line with the trend, observed globally (see e.g. Hanusch,
2013), towards the ‘academisation’ of journalism, as fewer and
fewer journalists enter the profession without both a tertiary
education and also some specialist education in journalism.
This trend is clearly evident in the UK. Indeed, Jonathan
Baker is himself now running a journalism degree programme
at the University of Essex (University of Essex, 2014). Our
survey shows that 86% of UK journalists now have at least
a bachelor’s degree. This academisation becomes even
more pronounced if we look at those who have entered the
profession in recent years. Of those with three or fewer years
of employment, 98% have at least a bachelor’s degree with
36% having a master’s. We can conclude then that journalism
has become fully academised. Given the increasing costs of
university education in the UK, especially when that education
may include a master’s degree, and given the competitiveness
of university entry, questions need to be asked about
the socio-economic diversity of future generations of UK
journalists. For example, the university entry rate for ‘men
receiving free school meals in the White ethnic group’ is just
9% (UCAS, 2015: 14) compared with 31% for all 18-year-olds in
England (UCAS, 2015: 11).
2
1.3 RELIGIOUS
AFFILIATION AND BELIEF
To what extent do UK journalists consider themselves aliated
with any particular religion? Comparing our data with the 2011
Census shows that all religious groups are under-represented
in the population of UK journalists with the exception of
Buddhists and Jews. Muslims are most under-represented,
followed by Hindus and Christians (see Figure 1.3a overleaf).
Of course surveys show that people can identify with a
particular religious group, perhaps for social or cultural
reasons, without practising regularly. A 2014 YouGov poll
(Jordan, 2014) found that, irrespective of any aliation with a
formal faith, 76% of those surveyed said that they were ‘not at
all’ or ‘not very’ religious. A similar number of UK journalists
feel religion is of little or no importance (74%); however,
their rejection is more profound, with 52% saying religion or
religious belief is ‘unimportant’ against 37% of the general
population who say that they are ‘not at all’ religious (see
Figure 1.3b overleaf).
2
The entry rate for disadvantaged 18-year-olds in England is 18.5% (UCAS, 2015: 13) and 16.4% for those who have received free school meals (ibid. 14).
11/ 10PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND DIVERSITY
UK journalists, then, are less likely to be religious or spiritual in
general terms and much less likely to aliate with a particular
religious group than the wider community. Surprisingly,
perhaps, this finding was welcomed by some religious
representatives we talked to. A spokesperson from the Hindu
Council UK said:
It is heartening to note that a majority of UK journalists
say that religion or religious belief is of little importance
in their lives. Religious pluralism, including equal respect
for atheists, is key to the future peace and success of this
planet. Doing the right things (e.g. reporting accurately and
reflecting the true picture without power and prejudice) are
the key important factors. (Personal communication, 20
February, 2016)
FIGURE 1.3b: DEGREE OF RELIGIOSITY/
IMPORTANCE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF
TO UK JOURNALISTS VS THE BRITISH
POPULATION.
Figure 1.3b:
D
egree of
r
eligiosity/
i
mportance of
r
eligious belief
t
o UK
j
ournalists vs
t
he British
p
opulation.
4%
20%
39%
37%
6%
20%
22%
52%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Very religious /
Very or
extremely
important
Fairly religious /
Somewhat
important
Not very
religious / Of
little importance
Not at all
religious /
Unimportant
British population (n = 2,143)
UK journalists (n = 685)
Note: Data about the British population are from a YouGov poll (Jordan, 2014)
in which respondents were asked ‘How religious, if at all, would you say you
are?’ UK journalists in our survey were asked ‘How important is religion or
religious belief to you?’
Note: Data about the British population are from a YouGov poll (Jordan,
2014) in which respondents were asked ‘How religious, if at all, would you
say you are?’ UK journalists in our survey were asked ‘How important is
religion or religious belief to you?’
While the Hindu Council UK recognised the need to encourage
minority groups, especially from deprived areas of the UK,
to join the journalism profession, their response emphasised
bridging the gap between spiritual and secular worldviews and
encouraging religious pluralism, two areas that they felt would
benefit from ‘disinterested’ journalists.
1.4 ETHNICITY
Comparing the results of our survey with data from the 2011
UK Census shows that those of Asian and Black ethnicity are
under-represented in the population of UK journalists. The
most under-represented group are Black Britons, who make up
approximately 3% of the British population but just 0.2% of our
sample. Asian Britons represent approximately 7% of the UK
population but just 2.5% of our sample (see Figure 1.4).
FIGURE 1.4: ETHNICITY OF NON-WHITE UK
JOURNALISTS IN 2015 COMPARED WITH
THE 2011 CENSUS.
Figure 1.4:
Ethnicity of
non-white UK
journalists in
2015 compared
with the 2011
Census.
2.3%
2.5%
0.2%
1.3%
2.0%
6.9%
3.0%
1.0%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
Mixed race Asian Black Other
UK journalists in 2015 (n = 683)
2011 UK Census
Note: White journalists made up 94% of our sample, while the 2011 Census
revealed that 87% of the UK population was white.
FIGURE 1.3a: PERCENTAGE OF UK JOURNALISTS AFFILIATED WITH A RELIGION (OR NONE)
COMPARED WITH THE 2011 CENSUS.
Figure 1.3a: Percentage of UK journalists affiliated with a religion (or none) compared with
the 2011 Census.
31.6%
0.4% 0.4%
2.7%
0.4%
3.3%
61.1%
64.4%
4.8%
1.4%
0.5%
0.4%
1.2%
27.8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Christian Muslim Hindu Jewish Buddhist Other religion No religion
UK journalists in 2015 (n = 669) 2011 UK Census
12REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
Journalists from ethnic minority backgrounds who completed
the survey had mixed opinions on discrimination in the
industry. One, a young Asian fi nancial journalist who worked
in the trade press, said discrimination ‘is not something I’ve
ever experienced. I’m on my third journalism job and every
o ce I’ve ever worked in, bar one which was very small, was
quite diverse.’ However, he did think that the situation might
be di erent ‘on some of the nationals and defi nitely on some
of the regional newspapers’ (personal communication, 23
February 2016).
Another journalist, a Muslim magazine editor, felt his ethnicity
had been a hindrance when applying for jobs. So much so that
he once ‘applied for the same job using an “English” sounding
name and got an interview after being rejected the fi rst time’
(personal communication, 23 February 2016). Both journalists
felt that cultural expectations and social connections were part
of what prevented more Asians going into journalism. Traditional
familial ambitions for children to go into ‘respected professions’
like ‘medicine, engineering, and dentistry’ make journalism a
second-tier career; and because getting into journalism is highly
competitive it requires ‘either a lot of luck or someone you
know’, and‘Asian parents often don’t know anyone in the media’
(personal communication, 23 February 2016).
1.5 POLITICAL STANCE
Although it is more common for media institutions to be
accused of political bias – the ‘right-wing press’ or ‘the liberal
media’
3
– individual journalists too can fi nd themselves labelled
as being of the right or of the left, often as a way of seeking to
explain behaviour that is outside journalistic norms. Examples
include the ‘extreme’ rhetoric used by ‘right-wing journalist’
Richard Littlejohn (O. Jones, 2012) or the ‘controversial columns
defending . . . Palestinian freedom fi ghters’ written by ‘left-wing’
journalist Seumas Milne (Blanchard, 2015).
A search of the Nexis database of UK newspaper stories dating
back to 1982 reveals that the term ‘left-wing journalist’ has been
used 538 times, about twice as frequently as the term ‘right-
wing journalist’. But where are UK journalists on the political
spectrum? We asked journalists to choose a point on a scale
from 0 to 10 (where 0 was left, 10 was right, and 5 was centre)
that was closest to their own political stance. Our results show
that the single most chosen point on the scale was the centrist
5, with 24% of journalists choosing that position. A little over
half (53%) chose a position to the left of centre and 23% to the
right of centre (see Figure 1.5a).
FIGURE 1.5a: POLITICAL AFFILIATION OF UK
JOURNALISTS, DECEMBER 2015 (n = 603).
Figure 1.5a:
P
olitical affiliation
o
f UK journalists,
D
ecember 2015 (
n
= 603).
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5 = political centre point Politically ‘left’ Politically ‘right’
This pattern di ers somewhat between journalists of di erent
ranks and levels of responsibility. Our survey shows that, while
the proportion of journalists with a centrist political view stays
fairly steady across the ranks, there is a clear increase in right-
of-centre journalists in more senior roles, and a corresponding
decrease in left-of-centre journalists, particularly above the rank
of junior manager (see Figure 1.5b).
FIGURE 1.5b: POLITICAL AFFILIATION OF UK
JOURNALISTS BY RANK, DECEMBER 2015.
Figure 1.5b:
P
olitical
a
ffiliation of UK
j
ournalists by
r
ank, December
2
015.
42%
55%
56%
27%
22%
26%
31%
23%
18%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Senior managers
(n = 154)
Junior managers
(n = 228)
Rank and file
journalists
(n = 206)
Left Centre Right
Such self-reported political beliefs do not, of course,
necessarily correspond to ‘objective’ assessments of political
identity. For example, one study reported that ‘participants
showed a signifi cant bias toward perceiving themselves as
more conservative than they actually were, and this e ect was
more pronounced among independents and conservatives than
liberals’ (Zell and Bernstein, 2014).
Whatever the self-perceived or ‘objective’ political stance of
journalists, their individual beliefs are not directly and uniformly
refl ected in the output of the media. First, not all journalists
exercise the same degree of infl uence on the news agenda.
Secondly, journalists’ personal beliefs are moderated by other
infl uences on their work, such as editorial policy and journalism
ethics. The infl uences that journalists feel a ect their work are
3
A search of the Nexis database of UK newspaper stories dating back to 1982 found more than 3,000 mentions of the phrase ‘liberal media’, and more than 2,000
mentions of the ‘right-wing press’.
13/
12
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND DIVERSITY
more fully discussed in Section 6. However, we will mention
here that our survey shows journalists think ‘Editorial Policy’
and ‘Journalism Ethics’ are more influential on their work than
their personal values and beliefs.
Ethical codes of practice that apply to UK journalists mention
the need to distinguish between ‘fact’ and ‘opinion’ or
‘comment’ (NUJ, 2011; IPSO, 2016), obligations that most
journalists claim to take seriously: 66% of the journalists in our
survey ‘strongly agree’ that ‘journalists should always adhere
to codes of professional ethics’, with another 28% agreeing
‘somewhat’. Beyond strict codes of practice, UK journalists work
within a professional culture where there is an expectation
that they will be ‘detached’ and ‘report things as they are’.
We discuss the professional roles that journalists consider
important in full in Section 4. In the context of this discussion
about the extent of the influence of journalists’ political beliefs,
we will simply report how our survey revealed that more
than three-quarters felt that being a ‘detached observer’ was
‘extremely’ or ‘very’ important and that even more (93%) felt the
same about ‘reporting things as they are’.
In this section we have reported journalists’ perceptions of their
political stance, noted how that pattern changes with seniority,
and pointed to other moderating influences on journalists’
work. There is no space to enter into a full debate on how
journalists’ personal political beliefs weigh up against other
factors in influencing the selection of news stories and their
framing. However, we will say that there are those who believe
that influences such as ownership, commercial considerations,
sourcing practices, and media management by vested interests
carry much more weight than the beliefs of individual journalists
(see e.g. Herman and Chomsky, 1994).
1.6 CONCLUSIONS
Although women make up a relatively high proportion of the
journalism profession in the UK and are on a par with their male
colleagues in terms of the editorial freedom they wield and
their contractual conditions, they are less well remunerated and
less likely to progress to senior positions. The normalisation of
the graduate entry route into the profession is helping correct
historical gender imbalances,
4
although this academisation
of journalism may have other, undesirable, consequences,
particularly for its socio-economic diversity.
UK journalists reflect the general population’s religious diversity
far less well than its male/female ratio, although some religious
representatives do not think this is necessarily a bad thing,
as long as journalists report accurately and without bias.
UK journalism has a significant diversity problem in terms of
ethnicity, with Black Britons, for example, under-represented
by a factor of ten. Some of our survey’s respondents had
witnessed discrimination based on their ethnic characteristics
first-hand. Commenting on this survey’s findings, Michelle
Stanistreet, general secretary of the National Union of
Journalists, said ‘employers must now be compelled to do an
equality audit of their own organisations and then address clear
disparities’ (personal communication via Oscar Williams, 26
February 2016).
About half of journalists in the UK say they take a left-of-centre
political stance, with the remaining half split between the centre
and the right-wing. Although certain political beliefs (those
to the right-of-centre) increase with levels of responsibility,
journalists claim to adhere strongly to the professional
paradigm of neutrality. They also maintain that their personal
beliefs, political and otherwise, are less important than other
influences on their work. While this may be so, those other
influences, such as public relations activity, are not politically
neutral and, as we will show later, their eects are strong and
growing.
4
Women outnumbered men on UK journalism degrees in every year between 2007 to 2014 except 2008 (Reid, 2015).
14REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
In this section we present data on the employment conditions
of journalists in the UK, including the nature of their contracts;
the number of newsrooms and outlets they work for; the
proportion who take other paid work; and their job roles, rank,
and income. We also consider the geographical reach of the
primary news outlets journalists work for, to try to gauge, at a
time of instant international communication, the growth in the
importance of audiences who are geographically removed from
the journalists who serve them.
2.1 NATURE OF
CONTRACT
TABLE 2.1: PROPORTIONS OF UK
JOURNALISTS WORKING FREELANCE OR AS
A PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE.
Table 2.1: Proportions of UK journalists working freelance or as a
p
ermanent or temporary employee.
This
survey
(2015)
NCTJ
(2012)
LFS
(2015)
Whole
labour
force
a
Permanent 74% 66% 61%
79%
Temporary 7% 5% 1%
5%
Freelance
b
17% 21% 37%
15%
Other 3% 8% 1%
0.5%
a
June–September 2015. Source: ONS, 2015b.
b
The ONS LFS used the term ‘self-employed’ rather than ‘freelance’. The NCTJ’s
survey also asked journalists whether they were ‘self-employed’ (either freelance or
working for their own company).
a. June–September 2015. Source: ONS, 2015b.
b. The ONS LFS used the term ‘self-employed’ rather than ‘freelance’. The
NCTJ’s survey also asked journalists whether they were ‘self-employed’
(either freelance or working for their own company).
Our survey shows that 81% of journalists in the UK are regular
employees, with 17% working on a freelance basis, and another
3% having some ‘other’ arrangement (see Table 2.1). This
proportion of freelance journalists is slightly lower than that
found in the NCTJ’s Journalists at Work survey (NCTJ, 2012),
and signifi cantly lower than that found in the O ce for National
Statistics’ Labour Force Survey (LFS). In 2012, the NCTJ found
that 21% of journalists worked in a ‘self-employed’ capacity –
12% freelance and 9% for their own company (NCTJ, 2012). For
the third quarter of 2015, the LFS shows 37% of journalists as
being self-employed (ONS, 2015b), although the small sample
size (96) means we should interpret their data with caution. The
higher proportion of freelancers found by the LFS may be due
to the fact that journalists looking for work are included (8% of
the sample), some of whom may identify as freelancers. The
sampling strategy we used in our survey targeted journalists
who were actively working – excluding those who earned less
than 50% of their income from journalism.
At 17%, the proportion of journalists we found to be working
freelance is slightly above the average for the UK labour force,
although about the same as in the wider ‘Information and
Communications’ sector: in the third quarter of 2015, 15% of
the UK labour force were self-employed as were 16% of those
working in ‘Information and Communications’ (ONS, 2015b).
There have been regular reports of journalists in permanent
employment being made redundant and replaced by freelance
(and ‘citizen’) journalists. For example, in October 2015, the
Brighton Argus, part of the Newsquest group, announced it
intended to ‘reduce the pictures department from three full-
time photographers to one full-time picture editor as part of
its policy to use readers’ pictures and freelance contributions’.
Similar changes have happened in other newspaper groups
including Johnston Press (NUJ, 2016).
Has there been, then, an increase in the proportion of freelance
journalists in recent years? Is the restructuring of the sort
mentioned above creating more opportunities for freelance
journalists – as proprietors’ press releases may lead us to
believe – or is it, on the other hand, putting out of work skilled
professionals who are unlikely to continue working in journalism
due to the limited opportunities available to freelancers?
If we look at the LFS data on ‘Journalists, newspaper and
periodical editors’ from 2001 to 2015, we see that there is not a
clear pattern of increased freelance working. For example, the
proportion of freelance journalists in 2011 (32%) was no higher
than it was in 2002, 2004, or 2005 (see Figure 2.1 overleaf).
We would conclude, then, that opportunities for freelance work
within journalism do not appear to be increasing. Instead, it
may be the case that many of those being made redundant are
being lost to the profession along with the skills they embody.
Mike Pearce, for 20 years an editor of local newspapers in
Kent, suggests that the gaps left, especially at the local level,
EMPLOYMENT
CONDITIONS
NEIL THURMAN
15/
14
are being fi lled by low-quality content from ‘citizen journalists’.
This trend, he believes, is hastening the demise of newspapers,
with readers reluctant to buy titles that are increasingly poorly
illustrated and written:
The arrival of so-called ‘citizen journalists’ means
proprietors are near their holy grail of producing news
without the expense of reporters. Training schools have
closed, on-the-job training is minimal. Background stories
are rarely tackled, courts go unreported, raw copy appears,
unsubbed. (Personal communication, 19 February 2016)
FIGURE 2.1: PROPORTION OF UK
JOURNALISTS IDENTIFYING AS SELF-
EMPLOYED, 2001–2015.
Note: Data are for June–September each year. Source: ONS, 2015b.
Figure 2.1: Proportion of UK journalists
i
dentifying as self-employed, 2001–2015.
0%
20%
40%
60%
Note: Data are for June–September each year. Source: ONS, 2015b.
2.2 FULL- AND PART-TIME
WORKING
Our questionnaire only asked journalists who were permanent
or temporary employees – not freelancers – whether they
worked full- or part-time. The results show there is a strong
connection between the type of employment contract and
full-time working. A higher proportion (90%) of journalists who
are permanently employed work full-time than those on a
temporary contract, for which the fi gure is 50%. Our fi gures
show the same general trend as the NCTJ’s 2012 survey. That
survey, unlike ours, did report data on freelancers, showing that
only about half work full-time (see Table 2.2).
TABLE 2.2: PROPORTIONS OF UK
JOURNALISTS WORKING FULL-TIME.
Table 2.2: Proportions of UK journalists
w
orking full-time.
This survey
(2015)
NCTJ
(2012)
Permanent 90% 89%
Temporary 50% 72%
Freelance
51%
2.3 RANGE OF
NEWSROOMS AND NEWS
OUTLETS
A typical journalist in the UK works in a single newsroom for
two outlets, for example, a print and an online edition. To be
more precise, our survey found that the average number of
newsrooms worked in is 1.48, and the average number of news
outlets 2.2.
Freelancers are more likely to work for multiple newsrooms.
Whereas over 80% of journalists in regular employment work
for one newsroom, only 33% of freelancers do, with 14%
working for three, 9% working for four, and 6% working for
fi ve. Freelancers are also more likely to work for multiple news
outlets. While over 60% of regular employees work for a single
news outlet, only 20% of freelancers do, with 24% working
for two, 15% working for three, 12% working for four, and 7%
working for fi ve.
Although newsrooms do produce separate news outlets in the
same medium, for example, BBC News at Ten and BBC News
at Six, many have outlets in more than one medium. Section 3.1
describes the cross-media working patterns of journalists in the
UK, showing, for example, that 54% work in one medium while
42% work across at least two media.
2.4 JOB ROLE AND RANK
We asked journalists to choose a job category that best
described their current position. ‘Reporter’ was the most
common, followed by ‘Editor-in-chief’ and ‘Senior editor’.
‘Managing editors’ came next, followed by ‘Desk’ and
‘Department’ heads (see Table 2.4a).
TABLE 2.4a: UK JOURNALISTS’ JOB ROLES,
DECEMBER 2015 (n = 698).
Table 2.4a: UK journalists’ job roles,
D
ecember 2015 (
n
= 698).
Position in newsroom
Reporter 23%
‘Other’ 23%
Editor-in-chief
15%
Senior editor
15%
Managing editor
7%
Desk head or assignment editor
6%
Department head
6%
Producer
3%
News writer
1%
Trainee
0.4%
Note: Due to rounding, percentages do not add up to 100%.
Note: Due to rounding, percentages do not add up to 100%.
Nearly a quarter of our respondents felt that their role did
not fi t into one of our nine predefi ned categories, including
some freelancers unsure, perhaps, of how to respond to a
question which asked for their role ‘in the newsroom’ (some
made the point that, as freelancers, they did not work in
16
REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
a newsroom). Also in the ‘Other’ category were senior or
specialist journalists who felt that their role was not adequately
described by our predefi ned terms ‘reporter’ or ‘news writer’.
Production roles, such as sub-editor or production editor,
also featured. We present a summary of the other roles
journalists defi ned for themselves in Table 2.4b. In it we have
grouped over 100 di erent job titles into 13 broad categories
covering proprietorial, production, supervisory, and writing and
presenting roles. For the purpose of further analysis we also
recategorised the roles of all the journalists in our survey into
three even broader groups:
• senior/executive managers with strategic authority;
• junior managers with operational authority;
• rank and fi le journalists with limited authority.
TABLE 2.4b: OTHER JOB ROLES SPECIFIED
BY UK JOURNALISTS, DECEMBER 2015
(n = 698).
Table 2.4b: Other job roles specified
b
y UK journalists, December 2015 (
n
= 698).
Position in newsroom
Freelance 4%
Deputy/section editor 4%
Feature writer/columnist/leader writer
2%
Writer/senior/chief writer
2%
Editor
2%
Specialist correspondent
1%
Presenter
1%
Sub-editor/senior sub-editor
1%
Other
1%
Broadcast journalist
1%
Online/social media editor
1%
Production editor
1%
Publisher/founder/MD
1%
Our recategorisation is relatively simple. By comparison, the
NCTJ’s Journalists at Work report assigned journalists to seven
groups. The simplicity of our approach has allowed us to
conduct relatively robust cross-tabulations, for example, looking
at the editorial independence of rank and fi le journalists against
their junior and senior managerial colleagues (see Section 3.3)
and how pay di ers by rank.
Overall we found that 25% of our sample were in senior
managerial roles, 38% were in junior managerial roles, and 36%
were rank and fi le journalists. Although lacking in operational or
strategic authority, rank and fi le journalists – for example, those
who call themselves ‘senior writers’, ‘special correspondents’,
and ‘presenters’ – can have salaries in the higher salary bands.
Four rank and fi le journalists told us they took home more than
£115,000 per year.
2.5 INCOME
Our survey shows that UK journalists’ salaries range widely,
5
with around 20% earning less than £19,500/year (gross), and
about 5% earning more than £76,800. The median salary band
was £28,812–£38,400. Our survey only included journalists
who were earning at least 50% of their income from journalism,
which may explain why the median salary earned is higher
than that found by the NCTJ’s Journalists at Work survey. In
that survey more of the sample worked part-time. The median
salary band for journalists surveyed by the NCTJ in 2012 was
£25,000–£29,999, which, when adjusted for infl ation, equates
to £26,629–£31,953 in 2015. However, because of the di erent
sampling strategies and salary bands used by the two surveys,
it is di cult to make comparisons. We are reluctant, therefore,
to reach any conclusions about the growth of journalists’
average salary since 2012. What we can do, however, is
compare incomes across other dimensions: employment
contract, rank, age, gender, education, and type of news outlet
– both in terms of geographical reach and medium.
BY GENDER
In Section 1, which addresses UK journalists’ personal
characteristics and diversity, we describe the pay di erence
between men and women, showing how women working full-
time in journalism earn less than their male counterparts.
BY AGE
As expected, journalists’ salaries rise in their twenties, thirties,
forties, and fi fties, only dropping o at age 60 and over when
a greater proportion start to work part-time and in a freelance
capacity.
6
Almost all (88%) of the journalists in our survey aged
24 or less earned between £0 and £19,200. Given that many
will not be earning at the top of that band, this fi gure is likely
to be at, or even below, the living wage
7
for many. Of those
in their mid to late twenties, a time when many people would
like to buy a property, the vast majority (83%) are earning less
than £29,000 a year (see Figure 2.5a overleaf), about the
same as the median graduate starting salary in 2014–15 (BBC
News, 2015). Given that it has been estimated that, across the
UK, a fi rst-time buyer needs a minimum income of £41,000 –
and £77,000 in London – (Kollewe, 2015), a ordable housing
is a critical issue for many journalists unless they have other
sources of income.
BY MEDIUM WORKED IN
The NCTJ’s 2012 survey found that journalists working mainly
in television earned the highest salaries, with radio and online
coming next, followed by magazines and then newspapers. Our
survey did not ask respondents to indicate their main medium
of employment but rather all the media they worked in (about
42% told us they worked across more than one medium).
Using those data we are able to give an impression of the links
5
Although, as we discuss in Section 7.5, income diversity among journalists is not as wide as that of the general population.
6
Of journalists in their fi fties, 8% work part-time compared with 12% of those in their sixties. 21% of those in their fi fties work freelance compared with 32% of those in
their sixties.
7
£16,302 for those working outside London and £18,570 for those in the capital (Vero, 2014).
17/
16
EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS
Figure 2.5a: Gross monthly salaries of UK journalists by age, December 2015 (
n
=
587).
88%
35%
12%
9%
9%
23%
8%
48%
41%
27%
20%
30%
4%
16%
39%
37%
37%
33%
2%
7%
23%
24%
10%
2%
5%
11%
5%
<=24
25–29
30–39
40–49
50–59
>=60
£0–1,600 £1,601–2,400 £2,401–4,000 £4,001–6,400 >=£6,401
Figure 2.5b: Gross monthly salaries of UK journalists by medium worked in,
D
ecember 2015 (
n
= 618).
11%
19%
16%
8%
18%
16%
18%
15%
28%
33%
37%
22%
21%
30%
33%
29%
36%
25%
29%
46%
44%
30%
31%
39%
19%
15%
12%
19%
11%
19%
14%
13%
4%
7%
6%
6%
6%
5%
4%
4%
Daily newspaper
Weekly newspaper
Magazine
Television
Radio
News agency
Online outlet (stand-alone)
Online outlet (of offline outlet)
£0–1,600 £1,601–2,400 £2,401–4,000 £4,001–6,400 >=£6,401
Note: Because respondents could indicate that they worked in multiple media (and 42% do, see section 3.1) these figures do not represent the salaries paid by the
separate media industries, but rather the salaries of journalists who work wholly or partly in each media industry.
Figure 2.5c: Gross monthly salaries of UK journalists working in one medium or
two media, December 2015 (
n
= 508).
21%
17%
32%
30%
30%
32%
11%
17%
7%
3%
Work in two media
Work in one medium
£0–1,600 £1,601–2,400 £2,401–4,000 £4,001–6,400 >=£6,401
FIGURE 2.5a: GROSS MONTHLY SALARIES OF UK JOURNALISTS BY AGE, DECEMBER 2015
(n = 587).
FIGURE 2.5b: GROSS MONTHLY SALARIES OF UK JOURNALISTS BY MEDIUM WORKED IN,
DECEMBER 2015 (n = 618).
FIGURE 2.5c: GROSS MONTHLY SALARIES OF UK JOURNALISTS WORKING IN ONE MEDIUM OR
TWO MEDIA, DECEMBER 2015 (n = 508).
Note: Because respondents could indicate that they worked in multiple media (and 42% do, see section 3.1) these fi gures do not represent the salaries paid by
the separate media industries, but rather the salaries of journalists who work wholly or partly in each media industry.
18
REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
between medium worked in and salary. Our results show, as
the NCTJ’s survey did in 2012, that journalists working wholly
or partly in television are most highly remunerated, with 25%
receiving a gross monthly salary of more than £4,001. At the
other end of the spectrum, those working wholly or partly in
magazines and weekly newspapers appear to be the least well
remunerated (see Figure 2.5b).
We also looked at di erences in salary between journalists who
practised in more than one medium and those who did not. The
results show that there is no clear fi nancial benefi t to working
in more than one medium. For example, while 47% of those
working in one medium earn less than £2,400/month, 53% of
those working in two media do (see Figure 2.5c).
8
Why, then, are the skills required to work across multiple media
apparently not being rewarded? Spyridou and Veglis (2016)
believe the convergence projects that provide opportunities for
journalists to work across multiple media ‘are primarily driven
by the market logic that aims to reduce costs, while increasing
productivity and maximising profi t’, part of a historical process
whereby ‘technology has been used by owners and managers
to . . . make journalistic labor cheaper’. So, although much of
the discussion around multiskilling is framed in positive terms,
what Spyridou and Veglis call the ‘super journalist paradigm’,
some believe that under convergence there is a tendency
for journalists’ skills to be spread thinly over multiple formats,
exploiting ‘the technological and social opportunities o ered by
convergence in order to enhance monetization opportunities’
(ibid.).
In a study of production convergence in UK newsrooms, Saltzis
and Dickinson (2008: 222) predicted a two-tier workforce with
‘the “single skilled” specialists, valued for their high journalistic
standards; and “the multiskilled [journalist]”, valued for their
versatility and adaptability’. Our survey indicates that versatility
and adaptability across multiple media may not command a
premium over high journalistic standards in a single medium.
BY NATURE OF CONTRACT
The median salary band for freelance and full-time journalists
who completed our survey was the same. Looking at the spread
of earnings we can see that, although a greater proportion of
freelance journalists are in the lowest salary band, a higher
proportion are in the highest salary band (see Figure 2.5d).
Overall our survey does not show a huge fi nancial
disadvantage to working on a freelance basis, at least in
terms of annual income. However, other issues face freelance
journalists. A comprehensive survey by the National Union of
Journalists (NUJ, 2004) showed ‘serious, and worrying, fl aws
in the way that sta editors and commissioning editors treat
freelancers’ and the e ect of the isolation that can come with
working from home.
Figure 2.5e: Gross monthly salaries of UK journalists by rank, December 2015.
12%
10%
27%
28%
33%
30%
33%
38%
29%
17%
16%
11%
10%
3%
4%
Senior managers
(n = 150)
Junior managers
(n = 239)
Rank & file journalists
(n = 228)
£0–1,600 £1,601–2,400 £2,401–4,000 £4,001–6,400 >=£6,401
Figure 2.5d: Gross monthly salaries of UK journalists by employment status,
December 2015.
21%
14%
31%
26%
31%
38%
35%
34%
26%
12%
16%
5%
6%
5%
Freelancers (n = 97)
Full-time employees (n = 462)
Part-time employees (n = 42)
£0–1,600 £1,601–2,400 £2,401–4,000 £4,001–6,400 >=£6,401
FIGURE 2.5e: GROSS MONTHLY SALARIES OF UK JOURNALISTS BY RANK, DECEMBER 2015.
FIGURE 2.5d: GROSS MONTHLY SALARIES OF UK JOURNALISTS BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS,
DECEMBER 2015.
8
Some may seek to explain this result by suggesting that younger, less well-paid journalists are more likely to work across multiple media having, perhaps, received
multi-media training at university. In fact, journalists who have entered the profession in the last fi ve years do not work across more media than their more
experienced colleagues (see Section 3.1).
19/
18
EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS
BY ROLE AND RANK
As is to be expected, journalists’ salary rises with rank.
However, our survey found that around 15% of rank and fi le
journalists, those we classifi ed as having limited strategic or
operational authority, were earning salaries above £48,000.
Furthermore, holding a position of responsibility did not
necessarily come with a high salary. Over 40% of journalists
who were classifi ed as senior/executive managers with
strategic authority were earning less than £29,000 (see Figure
2.5e on previous page).
Looking at income by job role in more detail we can see that
‘News writers’ were the least well paid (other than trainees),
with 50% earning less than £19,200/year, followed by
‘Reporters’. ‘Editors-in-chief’ were the most highly rewarded,
with 35% earning more than £48,000 (see Figure 2.5f).
BY EDUCATION LEVEL AND
SPECIALISM
There are negligible di erences in salary between those with
at least a bachelor’s degree and those without. In fact those
without a BA or equivalent are actually more likely to be
earning a salary in the upper three of our fi ve salary bands than
those who have one (see Figure 2.5g). This does not, of course,
mean that a degree is without value. As we show in Section 1,
on journalists’ personal characteristics and diversity, a degree
is now almost essential as a way into journalism. Instead, these
results are more indicative of how, in the past, entry into, and
progress through, the profession did not depend on formal
qualifi cations.
There is an inverse relationship between whether
journalists have specialised (at university) in journalism and
communication and the salary they earn, with those who have
specialised earning less than their colleagues whose university
Figure 2.5f: Gross monthly salaries of UK journalists by job role, December
2015.
13%
7%
7%
11%
12%
10%
23%
50%
23%
35%
39%
24%
28%
38%
33%
20%
29%
49%
34%
43%
37%
43%
30%
20%
23%
7%
20%
16%
19%
10%
11%
10%
12%
5%
4%
3%
Editors-in-chief (n = 83)
Managing editors (n = 43)
Desk heads/assignment
editors (n = 41)
Department heads (n = 37)
Senior editors (n = 95)
Producers (n = 21)
Reporters (n = 142)
News writers (n = 10)
£0–1,600 £1,601–2,400 £2,401–4,000 £4,001–6,400 >=£6,401
Figure 2.5g: Gross monthly salaries of UK journalists by level and type of
education, December 2015 (
n
= 575).
15%
17%
16%
18%
33%
31%
28%
36%
33%
33%
32%
33%
18%
14%
18%
10%
3%
5%
7%
No degree
At least BA/BSc
Degree in other subject
Degree in journalism/communication
£0–1,600 £1,601–2,400 £2,401–4,000 £4,001–6,400 >=£6,401
FIGURE 2.5f: GROSS MONTHLY SALARIES OF UK JOURNALISTS BY JOB ROLE, DECEMBER
2015.
FIGURE 2.5g: GROSS MONTHLY SALARIES OF UK JOURNALISTS BY LEVEL AND TYPE OF
EDUCATION, DECEMBER 2015 (n = 575).
20
REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
Figure 2.5h: Gross monthly salaries of UK journalists by geographical reach of
primary outlet, December 2015.
35%
22%
18%
10%
26%
36%
29%
32%
30%
29%
33%
36%
7%
11%
14%
18%
7%
5%
Local (n = 43)
Regional (n = 92)
National (n = 261)
Transnational (n = 222)
£0–1,600 £1,601–2,400 £2,401–4,000 £4,001–6,400 >=£6,401
FIGURE 2.5h: GROSS MONTHLY SALARIES OF UK JOURNALISTS BY GEOGRAPHICAL REACH
OF PRIMARY OUTLET, DECEMBER 2015.
studies were not related to journalism or communication.
However, this di erence is likely to be related to age
rather than to a specialist education in journalism being an
impediment to promotion, because a higher proportion of new
entrants to the profession have a degree in journalism than
their older, higher-earning colleagues (see Section 5.1).
BY REACH OF PRIMARY OUTLET
Our survey asked journalists to state the reach (local, regional,
national, or transnational) of the news medium for which they
do most of their work. Although reach is a di cult concept
in an era of global digital communication, the results show
that higher salaries are linked to working for an outlet with
wider geographical market reach. For example, about 35%
of local journalists earn less than £19,200
9
compared with
fewer than 10% of those working for a publication with an
international reach. At the other end of the scale, those working
in publications with a transnational reach are about twice as
likely to earn more than £48,000 as those working in local
publications (see Figure 2.5h).
2.6 OTHER OCCUPATIONS
Perhaps because of their low levels of pay, a relatively high
proportion of journalists have a secondary occupation. Our
survey found that 27% of journalists engaged in other paid
activities. This fi gure is slightly lower than found by the NCTJ
in 2012, again probably due to the higher number of freelance
journalists surveyed by the NCTJ. The NCTJ found that the
extent to which journalists worked in other jobs varied less than
expected according to rank. Our results were slightly di erent,
with only a fi fth of junior managers engaging in other paid work
compared with 35% of senior managers and 28% of rank and
fi le journalists (see Table 2.6).
The LFS for the third quarter of 2015 shows that only 3.7% of
the entire UK labour force did ‘other paid work . . . in addition
to’ a main job. Given the similarity of the questions asked in
our survey and by the LFS, we are reasonably confi dent to
conclude that journalists are more than seven times more likely
to have a secondary paid occupation than the average worker
in the UK.
TABLE 2.6: PROPORTION OF UK
JOURNALISTS WHO HAVE OTHER PAID
OCCUPATIONS, 2012 AND 2015.
Table 2.6: Proportion of UK journalists
w
ho have other paid occupations,
2
012 and 2015.
Our survey
(2015)
(n = 692)
NCTJ
(2012)
(n = 1064)
All journalists 27% 34%
Senior managers 35%
Junior managers
20%
Rank and file journalists 28%
Editorial management 27%
Section heads
30%
Non-editorial
management/section
heads
49%
2.7 GEOGRAPHICAL
REACH OF NEWS OUTLET
In an era of instant worldwide communication, when the
fourth most popular online newspaper in the US is the
British MailOnline (Alexa, 2016), the nature of the audiences
that news outlets serve has changed. Our survey asked
journalists to indicate the geographical reach of the news
outlet for which they did most of their work. We present the
data here and have used them elsewhere in this study to
analyse, for example, the di erences in salary or in editorial
freedom between journalists working at news outlets with a
local, regional, national, or transnational reach. The NCTJ’s
2012 survey gathered data on the proportions of journalists
working in provincial and national newspapers, radio, and
television. Our data, although not as specifi c at the provincial
and national level, goes further than the NCTJ’s survey by
asking journalists whether they feel their primary news outlet
addresses a transnational audience.
9
This fi gure is almost identical to that found by a Press Gaze e survey in 2015 (Turvill, 2015b).
21/
20
EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS
Over a third of UK journalists feel that their main news outlet
has a transnational reach (see Table 2.7a). Such outlets
include specialist publications aimed, for example, at fi nancial
professionals or sports fans; and emerging internet-only
news sites that have global branding and operations in
several di erent countries. Such sites, including Vice News,
the Hu ngton Post, Politico, and BuzzFeed, have gained
signifi cantly in popularity in recent years and are now amongst
the most visited news destinations in the UK. For example, the
Hu ngton Post is the third most popular online news source
in the UK and BuzzFeed attracts more online visitors than ITV
News, Times online, and Independent online (Newman, 2015:
24).
TABLE 2.7a: UK JOURNALISTS’
UNDERSTANDING OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL
REACH OF THE NEWS MEDIUM THEY DO
MOST OF THEIR WORK FOR, DECEMBER
2015.
Table 2.7a: UK journalists’ understanding
o
f the geographical reach of the news medium
t
hey do most of their work for, December 2015.
Reach
All journalists
(n = 700)
Journalists working
for UK national
newspapers
(n = 125)
Local 7% 0%
Regional 14% 2%
National
42% 69%
Transnational 36% 30%
Some journalists working for what have, traditionally, been
national and regional newspapers in the UK also believe that
the reach of their primary news outlet is now international.
Indeed, we found that a third of journalists working for UK
‘national’ newspapers, such as the Guardian, Daily Mail,
The Times, and the Daily Telegraph, now consider their
outlet’s reach to be transnational. Although many UK national
newspapers have had an overseas audience for their print
editions for many years, such international distribution is
expensive, meaning it has been limited in extent. For example,
96% of the Daily Mail’s average daily print circulation is within
England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of
Ireland and only 4%, a total of 56,680 copies, in foreign markets
(ABC, 2016).
The overseas market for UK news publications has been
changed by online publication, making the product available
outside the traditional limitations of print distribution and
increasing the exposure of UK news brands on the international
stage. It has been estimated that online has increased UK
newspapers’ daily overseas audience by between seven and 16
times (Thurman, 2014). MailOnline, for example, now gets 70%
of its online visitors from outside the UK (ABC, 2016).
However, overseas visitors are not as engaged as those from
news outlets’ home markets. The extent of this relative lack
of engagement seems to have remained consistent over the
years. For example, in 2005 overseas readers of UK online
newspapers read ‘3–4 times fewer pages than their domestic
counterparts’ (Thurman, 2007), identical to the pattern in
January 2016 for MailOnline (see Table 2.7b).
TABLE 2.7b: PROPORTIONS OF UNIQUE
BROWSERS AND PAGE IMPRESSIONS FROM
THE UK AND OVERSEAS REGISTERED BY
MAILONLINE, JANUARY 2016.
Table 2.7b: Proportions of unique browsers
a
nd page impressions from the UK and
o
verseas registered by MailOnline,
J
anuary 2016.
Unique
browsers
Page
impressions
Monthly
page
impressions
per unique
browser
UK 30% 63% 54
Rest of the
World
70% 37% 13
Source: Audit Bureau of Circulations.
Nevertheless, in spite of this relative lack of engagement,
the presence of overseas readers does seem to have shifted
journalists’ perceptions of their audience. Today a signifi cant
minority of those who would, in earlier times, have been
focused on a national audience believe they are addressing an
international market. We do not have space to do more than
briefl y consider the potential consequences of this change.
One hypothesis is that, to serve a globally dispersed audience,
news publications will increase the proportion of material that
is independent of locality. Such content could include, for
example, coverage of globally known individuals, including
celebrities; soft news on health, animals, and technology; and
sensationalist coverage of crime.
Our survey gives some support to this hypothesis, with
a higher proportion of journalists working at publications
with a transnational reach feeling that the pressure towards
sensational news increased ‘somewhat’ or ‘a lot’ between
2010 and 2015 (see Figure 2.7). Our survey also found 9.4%
of specialist reporters working for transnational publishers (n
= 149) were on the entertainment beat compared with 4.1% at
national publications (n = 170).
Other brands, however, are aiming for transnational reach with
di erent kinds of content. With editorial o ces in Australia
and the US, the Guardian has had ambitions to be the ‘world’s
leading liberal voice’ (Guardian, 2010) and FT.com has fi ve
international editions covering Asia, Europe, India, the Middle
East, and the US, as well as a Chinese-language edition.
22
REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
2.8 CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis indicates that the proportion of journalists working
freelance, while probably somewhat higher than that of the
whole labour force, has stayed fairly steady over time, mirroring
trends among other workers. It may be, then, that employers’
rhetoric about redundancies creating more freelance
opportunities is over-optimistic, with the resulting gaps more
likely to be fi lled with content from non-professional sources, to
the detriment of the quality of news output.
Our data on those freelancers still in the profession show, as we
expected, that they work for a greater number of newsrooms
and outlets but also, perhaps surprisingly, that they earn almost
as much as their contracted colleagues. More widely, low rates
of pay are a problem in journalism, particularly for those in
their twenties, and there are pay disparities between men and
women and between those working in di erent media formats.
It may be that low pay is contributing to the relatively high
proportion of journalists, across all ranks, who take on other
paid work outside journalism.
Our survey found that more than 30% of all journalists –
and 30% of those working for UK ‘national’ newspapers –
believe their main outlet addresses an international market.
Such a change in journalists’ conceptions of their audience
has consequences for news production, as content is
internationalised and localised.
The convergence that has made instant, international news
distribution possible has also changed news formats and
working routines, increasing cross-media working. Our survey
raises some doubts, however, about the consequences of such
changes for journalists, suggesting that those who work across
multiple media are not paid a premium for their versatility and
adaptability.
Figure 2.7: Proportions of UK journalists working on local, regional, national, or
transnational publications who believe pressure towards sensational news
changed between 2010 and 2015. December 2015.
3%
2%
2%
2%
8%
8%
8%
7%
40%
48%
38%
33%
32%
27%
32%
32%
18%
14%
20%
25%
Local (n = 38)
Regional (n = 85)
National (n = 243)
Transnational (n = 207)
Weakened a lot Somewhat weakened Did not change Somewhat strengthened Strengthened a lot
FIGURE 2.7: PROPORTIONS OF UK JOURNALISTS WORKING ON LOCAL, REGIONAL, NATIONAL,
OR TRANSNATIONAL PUBLICATIONS WHO BELIEVE PRESSURE TOWARDS SENSATIONAL
NEWS CHANGED BETWEEN 2010 AND 2015. DECEMBER 2015.
22
23/EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS
WORKING ROUTINES
NEIL THURMAN
This section focuses on some of the working routines of
journalists in the United Kingdom. Specifi cally: the type of
medium or media they work in; what subject areas, if any,
they specialise in; the freedom they have to make editorial
decisions; and how many news items they produce or process
each week. Other aspects of journalists’ routines, such as their
adherence to codes of conduct, changes in their use of social
media, and the extent to which they are infl uenced by PR
activities, are covered in other sections of this report.
3.1 CROSS-MEDIA
WORKING
There has been much debate, both in academic and
professional circles, about the extent to which journalists are
working, or should be prepared to work, in a cross- or multi-
media capacity, telling separate stories in di erent media
formats or using multiple media to tell a single story. While
news organisations’ accounts of moves in this direction often
carry an air of ease and inevitability – for example, Trinity
Mirror’s aim to ‘produce compelling multimedia content which
will increase audience and revenue in every marketplace’
(Trinity Mirror, 2006) – the reality on the ground often looks
rather di erent. In their analysis of Trinity Mirror’s 2006
Multimedia Strategy, Andy Williams and Bob Franklin found
journalists believed that multi-media working had ‘adversely
a ected the quality of the news they [were] able to produce’
(2007: 79) because, the journalists thought, the minimal training
and lack of resources available did not allow them to produce
news video of high quality.
Doubts about the need for what Marc Webber
10
disparagingly
called the ‘robo-journo . . . with a pen in one hand and a camera
in the other’ (Thurman and Lupton, 2008) are still voiced in the
profession. In a study by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies,
journalism professionals rated the importance of technical or
multi-media production skills less highly than did journalism
educators or students (Finberg and Klinger, 2014: 23). For
example, while 76% of educators thought the ability to shoot
and edit video was important or very important, only 46% of
professionals did.
Our survey provides some evidence to inform debates on
cross-media working, showing that, in 2015, a majority of UK
journalists (54%) work in a single medium (either TV, radio, print,
or online), with about a third working across two media. Just 5%
practise in three media and only 1% in all four (see Table 3.1a).
11
Narrowing the focus to those journalists who have entered the
profession in the last fi ve years (n = 120), we see that the fi gures
stay broadly the same, with very slightly fewer of these less
experienced journalists working across three media and none
working across four.
TABLE 3.1a: PROPORTIONS OF UK
JOURNALISTS WORKING IN ONE OR ACROSS
MULTIPLE MEDIA TYPES (PRINT, TV, RADIO,
ONLINE), DECEMBER 2015.
Table 3.1a: Proportions of UK journalists working in one or across
multiple media types (print, TV, radio, online), December 2015.
Number of media types
worked in
Proportion of UK journalists
(n = 700)
1
54%
2
36%
3
5%
4
1%
Note: 3% of journalists reported that they worked in a news agency, which is why
the percentage figures do not add up to 100.
Note: 3% of journalists reported that they worked in a news agency, which is
why the percentage fi gures do not add up to 100.
Our survey asked journalists to indicate whether they worked
‘in TV’ rather than asking whether they worked ‘with video’
and whether they worked ‘in radio’ rather than ‘with audio’. As
a consequence, our results probably underestimate the extent
of cross- or multi-media working. This is because, although we
were able to capture whether print journalists also worked in
TV or radio, and vice versa, and whether print, TV, and radio
journalists worked online, we gathered no data about the
extent to which journalists working online use multi-media skills.
Online journalists can, of course, make and publish video, audio,
photographs, and interactive graphics as well as writing text.
Although our survey showed that over 40% of journalists who
10
At the time Assistant Editor, News, The Sun Online.
11
The remaining 3% work for news agencies, and therefore the types of media they work in are unknown.
24
work online think the importance of technical skills has increased
‘a lot’, we are obliged to point our readers elsewhere for data on
the multi-media working patterns and output of online journalists
(e.g. Spyridou and Veglis, 2016; Karlsson and Clerwall, 2011).
Despite this limitation, our data do suggest that the predictions
of some – for example, that reporters would be taught to ‘think
visually for every story they produce and to abandon words
when graphics or video or stills work better’ (Stevens, 2001:
106) – have not, yet, come to pass. Both economic factors and
human limitations are probably playing a part. In their 2014
State of the News Media report, the Pew Research Center said
that ‘digital news video does not necessarily have a clear or
simple path to becoming a major form of news in the future.
Producing high-quality video – or even streaming it live – can
be costly, and the payo is not clear’ (Olmstead et al., 2014).
Furthermore, being an exemplary journalist in multiple media
is di cult. The words of Neil McIntosh,
12
spoken in 2007, still
carry some weight: ‘I don’t think we’ll ever produce journalists
who are brilliant print journalists and also brilliant in multimedia.
I don’t think they’re necessarily a complementary set of skills’
(personal communication, July 2007).
So far we have talked about the extent to which individual
journalists in the UK are working across di erent media types,
but how many journalists – in total – now work wholly or partly
in each media type? Comparing our results with those of the
NCTJ’s Journalists at Work survey (NCTJ, 2012), we see that,
since 2012, while the proportions of journalists whose work
involves radio, television, and magazines have remained
fairly constant, there has been a signifi cant decrease (from
56% to 44%) in the proportion working in newspapers, and a
very signifi cant increase (from 26% to 52%) in the proportion
working online (see Table 3.1b).
13
While the decline in newspaper employment is well known
– with an estimated 5,000 editorial redundancies in the UK’s
local and regional press, and the closure of more than 150
newspapers since March 2011 (Sharman, 2016) – what is less
well known is the extent of the growth in employment in online
journalism and the nature of that work. We estimate that there
may now be over 30,000 journalists in the UK who work wholly
or partly online.
14
However, the online work that is replacing
work at newspapers for some is, according to our survey,
less well paid, with journalists working exclusively online (n
= 91) reporting median pay of £19,212–£28,800 (gross/year)
against £28,812–£38,400 for journalists working exclusively in
newspapers (n = 106).
15
TABLE 3.1b: A COMPARISON OF THE
PROPORTIONS OF UK JOURNALISTS
WORKING WHOLLY OR PARTLY IN
DIFFERENT MEDIA TYPES IN 2012 AND 2015.
Table 3.1b: A comparison of the proportions of UK journalists
w
orking wholly or partly in different media types in 2012 and
2
015.
Type of medium
This survey
(2015)
NCTJ
(2012)
Online
a
52% 26%
Magazine 44% 43%
Newspapers 44% 56%
Television 14% 17%
Radio 12% 13%
a
The NCTJ’s survey asked if journalists worked online. Our survey asked whether
they worked in a stand-alone online outlet and/or in an online outlet with an offline
parent. For the purposes of comparison this table just reports the proportion of
journalists in our survey who said they worked wholly or partly at either or both
types of online outlet. For the record 29% of the journalists in our sample said they
worked wholly or partly at a stand-alone online outlet and 29% said they worked
wholly or partly an online outlet with an offline parent. We also asked journalists if
they worked in a news or picture agency – 6% said they did.
Note: journalists can work across several media types, which is why the
percentages do not add up to 100%.
a. The NCTJ’s survey asked if journalists worked online. Our survey asked
whether they worked in a stand-alone online outlet and/or in an online outlet
with an offl ine parent. For the purposes of comparison this table just reports
the proportion of journalists in our survey who said they worked wholly
or partly at either or both types of online outlet. For the record 29% of the
journalists in our sample said they worked wholly or partly at a stand-alone
online outlet and 29% said they worked wholly or partly an online outlet
with an offl ine parent. We also asked journalists if they worked in a news or
picture agency – 6% said they did.
Note: journalists can work across several media types, which is why the
percentages do not add up to 100%
3.2 SPECIALIST
REPORTING
If Marshall McLuhan will indulge us for a moment, we would like
to move from the medium to the message, from the container
to the content. Our survey asked journalists whether they
specialised in a subject area and if so which one. We found
that a small majority (53%) of UK journalists claimed to cover
a specifi c beat, with the rest working on various topics. About
half of the specialist reporters were happy to choose one
of ten specialisms
16
we named in our survey, with the other
half preferring to answer in their own words. Of the named
specialisms, ‘Sports’ was the most common, followed by
‘Economy’ and ‘Entertainment’. There were very few ‘Politics’
specialists, especially those focusing on ‘Foreign politics’ (see
Table 3.2 overleaf).
Of the journalists who felt their specialism did not fi t into one of
our ten predefi ned categories the largest number (48) worked
in the broad category of ‘Business/fi nance’. They covered areas
such as ‘banking’, ‘personal fi nance’, and ‘investment’, specialist
beats that did not fi t into our predefi ned ‘Economy’ category, a
term which many would have thought referred to reporting on
broad economic trends and macroeconomic policy (see Table
3.2 overleaf).
‘Lifestyle’ was the next most populous ‘other’ specialism
12
The then Head of Editorial Development, Guardian Unlimited.
13
Because of the di ering methodologies employed by the two surveys the fi gures are not perfectly comparable. E.g. the NCTJ’s sampling strategy, unlike
ours, included a targeted email to members of the National Union of Journalists, an organisation that has acknowledged that those working online are under-
represented in its membership (Rudin and Ibbotson, 2013: 2).
14
Based on the o cial O ce for National Statistics estimate of the number of journalists in the UK (63,139) and our own survey data.
15
This pattern also applies to journalists with more than ten years’ work experience, so is not simply a function of age.
16
Crime & law, Culture, Domestic politics, Economy, Entertainment, Foreign politics, Health, News/current a airs, Politics, and Sports. We appreciate that having a
specialism called ‘news/current a airs’ is something of an oxymoron and that journalists may have found it di cult to choose between ‘politics’ and ‘domestic
politics’. These categories were chosen by committee as part of the Worlds of Journalism Study, which provided the methodological framework for this study.
24
25/WORKING ROUTINES
and included journalists working in the areas of ‘travel’,
‘food and drink’, and ‘fashion’. Next, with 24 reporters,
was ‘Technology and Science’, although the emphasis was
heavily on technology. Only four journalists gave science as
a specialism (0.6% of our total sample). Given the challenges
of covering such a fast-moving and complex topic, and the
importance of science in society – from climate change to
cloning – it is something of an indictment of journalism in the
UK that there are not more science journalists. However, says
Connie St Louis, Director of the Science Journalism MA at
City University London, the scientifi c community too deserves
criticism.
Its strategy has been to systematically hire an ever-
increasing number of science public relations experts,
many of them former science journalists, who are now
paid to propagate and translate its fi ndings and produce
large amounts of material to highlight novel fi ndings
and discoveries, which leaves little space for the few
science journalists to call science to account thereby
fulfi lling its [journalism’s] key ‘critical friend’ role. (Personal
communication, 13 February 2016)
‘Transport’ follows, with 19 specialists, split between those who
covered business topics, such as ‘shipping’, and those with
more of a consumer focus, for example on ‘classic cars’. ‘Social
a airs’ comes next on the list, with 16 journalists, covering
topics such as ‘education’, ‘youth a airs’, and ‘religion’. Only
three journalists (0.4% of our sample) identifi ed themselves as
being specialists in religious a airs. The importance of religion
in both UK society and in international relations requires,
perhaps, a greater proportion of experts in the fi eld. As we
show in Section 1.3, on journalists’ personal characteristics and
diversity, UK journalists are less religious (both in the general
sense and in terms of their a liation with established religions)
than the general population by some margin, which may be
a partial explanation for why so few go on to develop into
specialists in this fi eld.
‘Environment’ had 13 specialists covering topics such as
‘farming’, ‘renewable energy’, and ‘animals’. The eight remaining
‘other’ categories contained relatively small numbers of
specialists, including fi ve working on ‘Defence and security’
issues, four on ‘Culture and media’ topics, and three on ‘Local
issues’. We have retained an ‘Other’ category for topics such as
‘Fire’ and ‘Investigations’ that could not easily be grouped into
larger categories.
Our survey shows some di erences in the distribution of
specialist journalists across the di erent media formats. For
example, sports journalists are relatively common at daily
newspapers, refl ecting the fact that most sports output, being
result-orientated, has a very short shelf life and is not as well
suited to, for example, monthly magazines. As a medium, online
enjoys many of the advantages of the media that preceded it.
Like daily newspapers it has an ability to respond quickly to
events. Like TV and radio it can carry audio and moving images.
Like magazines it has the capacity to display high-resolution
photographs. As a result it can, in theory, be a channel for
content of all kinds. We see, however, in the distribution of
TABLE 3.2: PROPORTION OF UK JOURNALISTS WORKING ACROSS 15 SPECIALIST BEATS (OR
NONE), DECEMBER 2015 (n = 699).
Transport
3% 3%
Social Affairs
2% 2%
Politics
2.1%
Politics
1.6%
Domestic Politics
0.3%
Foreign Politics
0.1% 0.1%
Other
2% 2%
Crime and law
1.6% 0.4% 2%
Environment
2% 2%
Health
1.4% 0.1% 1.5%
Defense and security
1% 1%
Local issues
0.4% 0.4%
Refused to answer
0.1% 0.1%
Table 3.2: Proportion of UK journalists working across 15 specialist beats (or
n
one), December 2015 (
n
= 699).
Specialism (or none)
Journalists selected
predefined category
Beat self-defined by journalist Total
Not a specialist reporter
47%
Business
11%
Economy
4%
Business/Finance
7%
Culture
9%
Culture
3%
Lifestyle
5%
Culture and Media
1%
Sports
6.6% 0.1% 6.7%
Entertainment
3.9% 0.1% 4%
Technology and Science
3% 3%
News/Current Affairs
3% 3%
Attention: table is
split over two
slides! (38 & 39)
26
REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
specialist reporters who work online, a relatively strong focus
on technology, sports, and entertainment. This observation
echoes other research which has found a preponderance of
sports and entertainment (and also crime) content in online
newspapers. Boczkowski (2010: 153) suggests that the
increasing consumption of news at work favours such topics
because they provide ‘better fodder for conversations with co-
workers than the often more contentious and sensitive topics
presented in public a airs news’. The unequal distribution of
content specialists across the di erent media types is, perhaps,
further evidence to support McLuhan’s (1994) conviction that ‘in
operational and practical fact, the medium is the message’.
3.3 EDITORIAL
INDEPENDENCE
Our survey asked journalists about the freedom they felt they
had in selecting news stories to work on and in the framing
of those stories. It also asked about their participation in
editorial and newsroom coordination, for example, attending
editorial meetings or assigning reporters. We have used some
of the data from the answers to these questions elsewhere
in this report, for example, to look at whether there are any
di erences in the perceived editorial independence of male
and female journalists (see Section 1.1).
Our survey also asked, in more general terms, how journalists
feel their freedom to make editorial decisions has changed over
time. The results of this question are reported in Section 5.3
where we also analyse why it might be that about twice as many
journalists think it has decreased as think it has increased.
With regard to the present, our survey shows that nearly three-
quarters of journalists believe that they have ‘a great deal’ of or
‘complete’ freedom in selecting the stories they work on, and
an even greater proportion tell us that they have ‘a great deal’
of or ‘complete’ freedom in deciding which aspects of a story
should be emphasised (see Figure 3.3a).
These results are, perhaps, surprising, given that, as we show
in Section 5, journalists believe the level of infl uence from
advertisers, public relations, and audience research has grown
over time. Furthermore, high proportions (up to two-thirds)
tell us that they feel ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ infl uenced by factors
including:
• their supervisors (47%) and editorial policy (64%),
• time limits (64%),
• audience research and data (41%),
• access to information (66%) and relationships with news
sources (43%).
17
A partial explanation for this apparent contradiction is that,
although journalists tell us that the infl uence from advertisers,
PR, and audience research is growing, they believe that some
growth is happening from a relatively low base. For example,
44% of journalists think that PR is of ‘little’ or ‘no’ infl uence on
their work.
However, the disparity between the amount of freedom
journalists believe they have in selecting stories and the
high level of infl uence they ascribe to factors such as their
supervisors and audience data is striking. What is the nature
of the freedom they believe they have? Is it, perhaps, freedom
to choose and shape stories within the limits set by audience
taste, by the time available, by the availability of sources, and
by the editorial direction and policy set by their supervisors?
Given the high degree of similarity between the news stories
that appear across di erent news outlets
18
and the extent to
which many stories contain material from PR, news agencies,
or other media,
19
it seems unlikely that journalists’ editorial
freedom is as great as they believe it to be or present it as
being.
There are two fi nal observations we would like to make
before we leave the topic of editorial freedom. First, freelance
journalists believe that they have almost exactly the same
amount of freedom in selecting stories as their full-time
colleagues and a little less freedom in deciding how to frame
stories, an indication that the limits on journalists’ work are set
and maintained in ways that do not depend on a permanent
employment contract. Secondly, journalists working at a local
level believe they have more editorial freedom, with 84%
believing they had ‘a great deal’ of freedom or ‘complete’
freedom in selecting stories compared with an average of 71%
for their colleagues working on publications with a regional,
national, or transnational reach. This result may, in part, be
Figure 3.3a UK journalists’ perceptions of the freedom they have in story
s
election and emphasis, December 2015.
3%
5%
18%
21%
46%
48%
32%
24%
Deciding which aspects of a
story should be emphasised
(n = 694)
Selecting the news stories to
work on (n = 694)
No freedom at all Little freedom Some freedom A great deal of freedom Complete freedom
FIGURE 3.3a: UK JOURNALISTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE FREEDOM THEY HAVE IN STORY
SELECTION AND EMPHASIS, DECEMBER 2015.
17
We report and analyse the full range of infl uences journalists feel a ect their work in Section 6.
18
E.g. Boczkowski (2010: 92) found that there was a 47% content overlap between the hard news stories that appeared in two Argentinian newspapers, Clarín and La
Nación.
19
Lewis et al. (2008: 15) found that 60% of articles in UK quality newspapers and 34% of broadcast news stories were wholly or mainly derived from PR and news
agencies/other media.
26
27/WORKING ROUTINES
due to a higher number of local journalists in our sample
being in senior management roles (35%) compared with their
colleagues in the regional (14%) or national (20%) news media,
but it may also be a result of the fact that our survey found that
local journalists felt the infl uence of PR, business interests, the
competition, and audience data less than their colleagues in
regional, national, and transnational media.
We asked journalists how often they participated in editorial
and newsroom coordination, for example attending editorial
meetings or assigning reporters. Over half did so ‘always’
or ‘very often’ and another 20% ‘sometimes’. As Figure 3.3b
shows, there are predictable increases in the participation
in editorial coordination with rank (e.g. nearly half of non-
managerial journalists ‘never’ or ‘rarely’ participate) and
decreases in participation amongst freelance journalists, 65%
of whom ‘never’ or ‘rarely’ participate. In addition to laying out
the basic fi gures here, in Section 1 we look at whether there are
any di erences between the sexes.
3.4 PRODUCTIVITY
As we show in Section 5, on change in journalism, journalists
believe that there have been very signifi cant increases in their
average working hours and decreases in the time available for
researching stories. One might expect, then, to see an increase
in journalists’ productivity, for example, in the number of news
items they produce or process. Unfortunately, we do not have
any directly comparable longitudinal data from the UK, but we
do have data that allow some approximate international and
longitudinal comparisons to be made.
Between 2007 and 2011 the Worlds of Journalism Study,
which provided the methodological framework for this project,
conducted a pilot study that measured the number of news items
produced or processed per week by journalists in 21 countries.
Although the UK was not part of that pilot study, the results
provide a useful point of comparison because the question
asked was identical to the question we asked in our survey, and
the results of the pilot study show that, for most countries, the
number of stories produced was within a relatively narrow range,
between fi ve and 14 per week, with the median number 12 (WoJ,
2013). These fi gures were based on an analysis of interviews
with 2,100 journalists from 413 news organisations in 21 countries.
Looking at the UK data from 2015, we see the median number
of news items produced per week is ten, not signifi cantly
di erent from the fi gure from 2007 to 2011 (see Table 3.4). The
Worlds of Journalism pilot study found that the median number
of items produced by ‘non-management’ journalists (e.g.
reporters and news writers) was ten, close to the number that
we found (8). We suggest, then, that journalists in the UK may
be producing 20–25% fewer news items per week than their
colleagues in some other countries, and that there may not
have been a signifi cant increase in the number of news items
produced by journalists globally in the last four to eight years.
TABLE 3.4: MEDIAN NUMBER OF NEWS
ITEMS PRODUCED OR PROCESSED/EDITED
PER WEEK BY ALL UK JOURNALISTS,
BY RANK AND FILE REPORTERS, AND
ACCORDING TO MEDIUM WORKED IN,
DECEMBER 2015.
Table 3.4: Median number of news items produced or processed/
edited per week by all UK journalists, by rank and file reporters, and
a
ccording to medium worked in, December 2015.
Journalists who…
Stories/
week
Work only for online outlet with offline parent
(n = 16)
37.5
Work only online (n = 87) 20
Work only for stand-alone online outlet
(n
= 69)
14
Work only for daily newspaper (n
= 49)
12
Work either ‘only online’ or ‘online
& in (an)other medium/media’ (n
= 343)
12
All journalists (n = 634)
10
Rank and file journalists (n
= 229)
8
Do not work online (n = 150)
7
The NCTJ’s Journalists at Work survey in 2012 found that the
median number of stories worked on per day was three. If we
assume a fi ve-day working week, this translates to a median
of 15 stories per week, higher than the median fi gure we
found in 2015. Due to the di culties of translating a daily to
weekly fi gure, we should only take this as a rough comparison.
Nevertheless, it provides some further evidence of minimal
change in journalists’ productivity since 2012. These results are
somewhat surprising given that journalists tell us there have
been signifi cant increases in their average working hours and
decreases in the time available for researching stories. Could it
be that changes to working practices, for example, an increase
in the number of stories produced as a result of increasing
Figure 3.3b: Degree of participation in editorial coordination for all UK
journalists and by rank and employment status, December 2015.
15%
8%
7%
28%
44%
12%
4%
9%
19%
21%
21%
17%
18%
26%
19%
27%
28%
36%
18%
8%
25%
43%
29%
9%
8%
All UK journalists (n = 696)
Senior managers (n = 176)
Junior managers (n = 266)
Rank and file journalists (n = 252)
Freelance journalists (n = 114)
Almost never Rarely Sometimes Very often Always
FIGURE 3.3b: DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION IN EDITORIAL COORDINATION FOR ALL UK
JOURNALISTS AND BY RANK AND EMPLOYMENT STATUS, DECEMBER 2015.
28
REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
online publication, had already happened by the time the
Worlds of Journalism pilot study and the NCTJ survey were
carried out? After all, many newspapers were fully online by the
turn of the millennium.
20
Our survey shows that there is a correlation between the
medium that journalists work in and the number of stories
they produce or process. Journalists who work online in some
capacity produce 71% more stories than journalists who do
not work online at all. This di erence is even larger in the
comparison between journalists who only work online and those
who do not, where there is a 186% increase in the number of
stories produced or processed.
21
Even when we compare those
journalists working on a daily newspaper with those working
in stand-alone online outlets, we see the online journalists
producing 17% more news items per week (see Table 3.4).
Should, then, we be worried about how online journalism
seems to have increased the volume of stories that journalists
produce? Not necessarily. It does not follow that the higher
volumes of stories produced online are of lower quality. First,
the collaborative possibilities o ered by online journalism mean
that journalists are not solely reliant on their own e orts, but
can harness material from their own readers, and from social
media, and so forth, thus potentially reducing the time required
to publish a story. Secondly, new formats for news output have
emerged online, such as tweets, which are by their very nature
limited in length and, as a result, fast to produce.
However, haste is an issue for concern. Thurman and Walters
(2013) described the ‘relatively loose culture of corroboration’
they found in the practice of live blogging, an online news format
which emphasises rapid updates. And with our data showing
that some rank and fi le journalists are producing, processing,
or editing 50, 60, or even 75 stories per week – a fi gure rising
through the 100s, 200s, 300s, and even as high as 500 if we
include junior and senior editors – there are genuine concerns
about whether standards of verifi cation, one of journalism’s
fundamental principles, can be maintained. Our survey showed
no statistically signifi cant di erence between journalists who
worked online and those who did not in terms of whether they
believed it was ‘always’ or ‘sometimes’ acceptable to publish
stories with unverifi ed content. However, as a species, we adapt
to new realities relatively easily, with the result that it may be
di cult to recognise when standards have slipped. An online
journalist at BBC World News quoted in Thurman and Schapals
(2016) recognised this to be the case when he talked about the
‘rivalry with other news outlets . . . about who could publish fi rst,
with “competitions” sometimes decided by “fractions of seconds”’.
Under the infl uence of that rivalry, he said, there had been ‘“less
onus” to be “close to 100 percent sure” about the accuracy of
statements’ and ‘the two-source rule [had] become “a bit more
exploded”’. In that case, however, the dangers of such practices
had been recognised and the journalist believed that ‘the
pendulum had started to swing back towards accuracy . . . [with]
more acceptance that journalists can take an extra few minutes
to “make sure this is factually right”’. Unfortunately, awareness of
the consequences that can come with the ability to publish almost
instantaneously may not be as high in every newsroom.
3.5 CONCLUSIONS
In this section we have shown how, even in an era of media
convergence, only a minority of UK journalists cross the
boundaries between print, broadcast, and online working.
This is not, however, to deny the relevance of new skills. With
over half of UK journalists working wholly or partly online,
opportunities exist for journalists to practise multi-media
storytelling – within commercial constraints and subject to
their own personal abilities. The decrease in employment at
newspapers and the increase in online outlets is giving more
journalists the chance to take such opportunities. However,
the fi nancial compensation for such work is not, yet, at a level
equivalent to that enjoyed by those who remain exclusively
employed in newspaper journalism.
About half of UK journalists consider themselves to be subject
specialists, and our survey shows that ‘Business/economics/
fi nance’ is the most populous specialism, followed by ‘Culture’,
then ‘Sports’ and ‘Entertainment’. The distribution of these
beat reporters across the di erent media types is broadly
as might be expected, although we see a higher proportion
of technology, entertainment, and sports specialists working
online, which, perhaps, shows that the nature of online news
consumption – interactive, from everywhere, and around the
clock – favours the production of certain types of content.
Our survey reveals intriguing contradictions in journalists’
perceptions of, on the one hand, their editorial independence
and, on the other, the infl uence of external factors such as
time and audience demands. This suggests, perhaps, that the
freedom they say they have is either somewhat illusory and/or
a construct used to help defi ne a professional identity.
Finally, we considered productivity. By international standards
UK journalists seem to have a little more time to work on each
news story. However, they believe there has been a reduction
in the time available to research stories, and our survey
suggests an increase in online working may be the cause, with
signifi cant di erences in the number of stories produced or
processed by journalists working online and those who do not.
Although this pattern has probably been established for some
years, and does not appear to be changing signifi cantly, the
consequences, such as tendencies to adopt a ‘looser culture of
corroboration’, must be kept under close scrutiny.
20
E.g. the Daily Telegraph launched the Electronic Telegraph in 1994 (Richmond, 2009) and the Financial Times’s FT.com started one year later in 1995 (FT.com, 2016).
21
Some of this is due to the fact that journalists working for the online outlet of an offl ine parent process a higher than average number of stories, perhaps because
they are uploading stories from the offl ine outlet onto the web.
28
29/
WORKING ROUTINES
JOURNALISTS’ ROLE
IN SOCIETY
JESSICA KUNERT AND NEIL THURMAN
In Britain, the role of journalists has been heavily scrutinised in
recent years, most notably by the Leveson Inquiry (Leveson,
2012). Furthermore, journalism is in a period of technological,
social, and economic upheaval that is having a profound
infl uence on its practice. In this context, what do journalists
in the UK consider their role in society to be? Do their views
refl ect some of the upheaval of recent years? And to what
extent are those views coloured by longer established notions
of what journalists should do or be? Our survey helps answer
some of these questions.
4.1 IDEAL ROLES
We asked journalists to spell out the three roles they
believed should be most important for journalists in the
UK to perform. These roles were not predefi ned in our
questionnaire, but respondents were invited to answer
in their own words. Five roles were mentioned especially
frequently (see Table 4.1). Highest-placed on the list, by some
margin, was the role of information provider. This function,
while not a big part of the ‘journalist-as-hero’ trope used
in fi lms such as Welcome to Sarajevo or All the President’s
Men, is performed by many journalists as they act as
intermediaries between the public, business, government,
the judiciary, and other actors in society, ensuring that each
is informed about the other.
TABLE 4.1: JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON
THE MOST IMPORTANT ROLES FOR
JOURNALISTS IN THE UK TO PERFORM, BY
FREQUENCY OF MENTION, DECEMBER 2015.
Note: Responses were aggregated using word frequency analysis.
Table 4.1: Journalists’ views on the most important
r
oles for journalists in the UK to perform,
b
y frequency of mention, December 2015.
Role
No. of mentions
Providing information
303
Providing accuracy
161
Holding power to account
148
Providing entertainment
117
Truth telling
115
Note: Responses were aggregated using word frequency analysis.
This role is vital to a well-functioning society, but is not,
or should not be, a matter of simply passing on whatever
information is received. Much of what is brought to journalists’
attention has been issued to further some interest or other.
Journalists should, therefore, act as checks and balances.
At a basic level this means verifying information before it is
published. It is no surprise, then, that providing accuracy is the
second most frequently mentioned role UK journalists feel they
should fulfi l.
Although a journalistic ideal, accuracy is not always achieved in
practice. Research shows a relatively high degree of inaccuracy
in news stories. For example, Porlezza et al. (2012) found
factual errors in ‘60 percent of Swiss newspaper stories . . . 48
percent of U.S. and 52 percent of Italian’, although many such
errors were relatively minor, such as the age of participants
or the spelling of names. Such inaccuracies are somewhat
understandable given the time constraints under which
journalists operate. Our survey reveals that journalists believe
those time constraints are becoming more severe, which,
along with some of the technological, commercial, and social
changes a ecting journalism, raises questions about whether
inaccuracies will increase (see Section 5).
For journalists to verify the information they issue is important
but, on its own, insu cient as a means of keeping a check
on society’s actors and ensuring there is a balance in the
representation of their interests. The reasons for this are
twofold. First, institutions and individuals will, usually, only
pass on to journalists information that they want published,
meaning that much else of interest only sees the light of day
as a result of leaks or through other processes of investigative
journalism. Secondly, some in society are far better equipped
to get their messages across, meaning that if journalists’
output – however accurate – simply mirrors the material they
receive, society will see a distorted picture of itself refl ected
in its media.
The need to provide these checks and balances is refl ected
in journalists’ belief in their role as ‘truth tellers’, the fi fth most
mentioned role in our survey, and in their belief that they
should be able to hold power to account, number three in our
list (see Table 4.1). Our survey shows that UK journalists exhibit
30
22
A caveat should be issued here. As we discuss in Section 7, although journalists may have lower levels of trust than the public in some of society’s actors, such as
the police, their trust in other institutions, such as the government or the military, does not appear to be lower than that of the general population.
low levels of trust in many of society’s actors (see Section 7),
an important precondition, perhaps, of being able to act as a
watchdog and expose the ‘truth’.
22
More is required, however,
for the watchdog function to be performed, and our survey
shows that many of the other necessary conditions, such
as time to research stories, independence from advertising
considerations and PR infl uence, and freedom to make editorial
decisions, are under pressure (see Section 5).
The fourth of the fi ve most frequently mentioned roles was
to entertain. With occasional exceptions, entertainment has
been a part of the British press for hundreds of years. Kevin
Williams writes of the ‘newsbooks of the civil war period’,
which established many of the conventions of the modern
newspaper, including the ‘agony column’ (2010: 21). And while
entertainment was, perhaps, anathema to those like William
Cobbett, behind the early radical press of the nineteenth
century, the second wave of radical newspapers in the late
1820s and 1830s, such as the Twopenny Dispatch, mixed
entertainment with activism, a tradition followed by the fi rst
Sunday newspapers, like the News of the World, which,
according to Williams (2010: 39), ‘represented attempts to
project a radical ideology through entertainment as well as
political instruction’. In the United Kingdom the role of the
journalist as an entertainer – while, as our survey shows, being
thoroughly modern – has a history that can be traced back
hundreds of years.
As well as asking journalists to express what they believed
to be their three most important roles, our survey asked
respondents to grade the importance of 21 predefi ned roles
covering six broad themes:
• detachment and analysis,
• scrutiny of politics and business,
• infl uencing politics, society, and public opinion,
• government support or opposition,
• meeting audience needs,
• promoting tolerance and diversity.
4.2 DETACHMENT AND
ANALYSIS
Being a detached observer is ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ important
for more than three-quarters of UK journalists, and ‘reporting
things as they are’ is even more so (see Figure 4.2). This is
in line with the answers given to our open-ended question,
where information provision and accuracy were most
frequently mentioned. It is important to acknowledge,
however, that journalists do not see ‘reporting things as
they are’ as a prohibition on commenting on news events.
For example, our survey shows that 67% also see providing
analysis of current a airs as ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ important
(see Figure 4.2). The unprecedented availability of reports
and commentary from news participants and sources, via
social media and other communication channels, is giving
journalists’ analytical and curatorial skills particular relevance
today, both for news consumers seeking guidance through
the sea of information and as a vehicle for journalists
to demonstrate their professional status in a changing
information environment.
4.3 SCRUTINISING
POLITICS AND BUSINESS
Holding power to account was the third most frequently
mentioned ‘ideal’ role put forward by journalists in their
own words. However, when we asked about the importance
of scrutiny in the context of journalists’ own work, a more
nuanced picture emerged. For a third, the scrutiny of
politics is not important in their work, and a fi fth think
the same about the scrutiny of business (see Figure 4.3
overleaf). There are, however, variations from this average
with journalists who specialise in di erent subject areas,
or ‘beats’. As is to be expected, while monitoring political
leaders is of great importance for politics and current
a airs journalists, it is of no interest to their entertainment
and culture colleagues. Interestingly, sports journalists’
responses were spread across the scale. While a quarter
Figure 4.2: UK journalists’ views on the importance of detachment and analysis, December
2015.
6% 7%
3%
20%
7%
19%
35%
26%
37%
32%
67%
40%
Provide analysis of current a
airs (n = 689)
Report things as they are (n = 697)
Be a detached observer (n = 694)
Unimportant Of little importance Somewhat important Very important Extremely important
FIGURE 4.2: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF DETACHMENT AND ANALYSIS,
DECEMBER 2015.
30
31/JOURNALISTS’ ROLE IN SOCIETY
thought scrutiny of politics was not important, a third thought
it was.
A similar pattern emerges when we look at views on the
importance of the scrutiny of business (see Figure 4.3). While
59% of all journalists thought it ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ important,
there were, again, variations according to beat. The role
was considered most important by economic journalists
and least important by those working in entertainment.
For sports journalists, the answers were, again, across the
scale, with over a third saying it was ‘extremely important’.
Recent scandals involving the IAAF (International Association
of Athletics Federations), FIFA (Fédération Internationale
de Football Association), and the UCI (Union Cycliste
Internationale) have brought the close – and sometimes
murky – links between sport, business, and politics to the fore.
Perhaps as a result, some sports journalists are now keenly
aware of the need for scrutiny of those areas.
4.4 INFLUENCING
POLITICS, SOCIETY, AND
PUBLIC OPINION
Setting the political agenda is considered by journalists in the
UK to be rather unimportant in their work, as is infl uencing
public opinion (see Figure 4.4). This is, perhaps, because
such explicitly politicised roles go against their strongly
held professional paradigm of neutrality and information
provision. However, in the softer, pseudo-political arena, we
fi nd di erent results, with 29% feeling it is ‘very’ or ‘extremely’
important to advocate for social change (see Figure 4.4).
Providing information for people to make political decisions
is seen as of ‘little’ or no importance by 43% of journalists,
and motivating people to participate in political activity is
considered even less important (see Figure 4.4). These results
sit in contrast to the fact that the provision of information
is one of the primary roles journalists feel their profession
should perform in society, and to journalists’ belief in the
importance of educating the audience (see Section 4.6 for
further discussion).
23
4.5 GOVERNMENT
SUPPORT AND
OPPOSITION
Journalists’ reluctance to adopt overtly political roles can also
be seen in their answers about the importance of supporting or
opposing government policy. Over 70% see it as of little or no
importance to be an adversary of government, and even more,
over 90%, think it is unimportant to support government policy
or to convey a positive image of political leadership (see Figure
4.5). However, there are, again, some contradictions here with
answers given elsewhere. For example, 48% of journalists
Figure 4.3: UK journalists’ views on the importance of scrutinising politics and business,
D
ecember 2015.
9%
19%
12%
13%
20%
20%
26%
19%
33%
29%
Monitor and scrutinise business (n = 681)
Monitor and scrutinise political leaders (n = 674)
Unimportant Of little importance Somewhat important Very important Extremely important
Figure 4.4: UK journalists’ views on the importance of influencing politics, society, and
public opinion, December 2015.
42%
28%
31%
23%
18%
34%
21%
15%
19%
16%
23%
24%
20%
20%
30%
31%
35%
28%
12%
21%
15%
18%
16%
11%
6%
16%
5%
11%
8%
5%
Motivate people to participate
in political activity (n = 663)
Provide info people need to
make political decisions (n = 676)
Support national development
(n = 663)
Advocate for social change
(n = 674)
Influence public opinion
(n = 684)
Set the political agenda
(n = 669)
Unimportant Of little importance Somewhat important Very important Extremely important
FIGURE 4.3: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF SCRUTINISING POLITICS AND
BUSINESS, DECEMBER 2015.
FIGURE 4.4: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF INFLUENCING POLITICS,
SOCIETY, AND PUBLIC OPINION, DECEMBER 2015.
23
We acknowledge that few journalists cover poli cs explicitly (see Sec on 3.2) and so opportuni es for informa on provision/educa on in this area are limited.
32
REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
Figure 4.5: UK journalists’ views on supporting and opposing government, December 2015.
69%
72%
48%
21%
21%
23%
8%
6%
19% 7%
Convey a positive image of political
leadership
(n = 657)
Support government policy
(n = 655)
Be an adversary of the government
(n = 661)
Unimportant Of little importance Somewhat important Very important Extremely important
Figure 4.6: UK journalists’ views on the importance of meeting the needs of their audience,
December 2015.
10%
28%
9%
11%
4%
12%
22%
14%
15%
16%
24%
25%
32%
24%
40%
33%
17%
29%
27%
39%
21%
9%
16%
23%
Educate the audience (n = 694)
Let people express their views (n = 686)
Provide advice, orientation, and
direction for daily life (n = 674)
Provide the kind of news that attracts
the largest audience (n = 690)
Provide entertainment and relaxation
(n = 692)
Unimportant Of little importance Somewhat important Very important Extremely important
FIGURE 4.5: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON SUPPORTING AND OPPOSING GOVERNMENT,
DECEMBER 2015.
FIGURE 4.6: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF MEETING THE NEEDS OF
THEIR AUDIENCE, DECEMBER 2015.
thought it was ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ important to scrutinise
political leaders. If such critical inquiries detect actions that are
problematic, then to reveal them is, we would suggest, acting in
an oppositional manner.
4.6 MEETING AUDIENCE
NEEDS
‘Providing entertainment’ is either ‘extremely’ or ‘very’
important for half of UK journalists, as is providing the ‘kind
of news that attracts the largest audience’ (see Figure 4.6).
The problems facing contemporary journalism are signifi cant.
According to Robert Picard (2014: 273), they include ‘mature
and saturated markets, loss of audiences not highly interested
in news, the diminishing e ectiveness of the mass media
businesses model, the lingering e ects of the economic crisis,
[and] the impact of digital competitors’. As a result, attracting
audiences is often seen as vital, especially when jobs, or the
future of whole publications, are at stake. Strategies to do
this can involve the use of audience research, which, as we
show in Section 6.4, is believed by 41% of journalists to be
‘very’ or ‘extremely’ infl uential in their work. Some possible
consequences of such popularism – including content
homogenisation – are discussed in Section 5.4.
Providing ‘advice, orientation, and direction’ for daily life was
seen as of little or no importance by about half of journalists,
while the other half thought it had some importance (see
Figure 4.6). This span of viewpoints is probably due to the
range of journalists our survey covered. While such advice
is an important part of some publications, such as women’s
magazines and tabloids, its role is minor for many others.
Journalists believe they have a role in letting people
express their views, with over 50% thinking it ‘very’ or
‘extremely’ important in their work (see Figure 4.6). Contrary
to expectations perhaps, it is not online journalists but radio
journalists who feel most strongly about this. A little less than
a third of them believe it is ‘extremely’ important, whereas
around 20% of online journalists do. While it is clear that
there are now many more opportunities for people to express
themselves in the media, we should examine journalists’ views
on the importance of facilitating such expression critically. The
challenges – legal, cultural, and commercial – of doing so are
considerable, especially at a time of polarised political opinion.
Indeed, some news sites are now abandoning or heavily
restricting comments sections (Pritchard, 2016). As we discuss
in Section 5.2, there are indications that journalists’ enthusiasm
for audience expression is more about the potential for using
the results as a source of news than about their desire to
support self-articulation or enlarge online ‘public spheres’.
An overwhelming proportion of journalists (79%) feel educating
the audience is either ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ important (see Figure
4.6). Given that less than half that proportion (37%) feel the
same about ‘providing people with the information they need
to make political decisions’, does ‘education’, for journalists
in the UK, not extend into political matters? For some, clearly
32
33/JOURNALISTS’ ROLE IN SOCIETY
not, which is to be expected given that opportunities for
political orientation are limited in many publications. These
di ering numbers may also be explained by the resonance that
‘educating the audience’ has for many in the profession. Lord
Reith, the fi rst Director General of the BBC, famously declared
that the Corporation’s raison d’être was to inform, educate, and
entertain. These words still appear in the organisation’s mission
statement today (BBC, 2016), and have been widely adopted by
public service broadcasters worldwide.
4.7 PROMOTING
TOLERANCE AND
DIVERSITY
UK journalists are split on the importance of promoting
tolerance and cultural diversity in their work. While for almost
half it is ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ important, there are 31% who
believe it is of little or no importance (see Figure 4.7). Tolerance
and diversity can, and should, be promoted in the workforce
(25% of our sample are in senior managerial roles) and in the
selection and framing of stories (nearly three-quarters of our
sample believe that they have ‘a great deal’ of or ‘complete’
freedom in selecting the stories they work on). There are a
number of initiatives to promote diversity in newsrooms and
in news content. For example, the BBC has committed to
refl ecting ‘modern Britain accurately and authentically’ in its
output (BBC, 2011), and the Press Association runs a bursary
scheme to ‘enable more people from ethnically and socially
diverse backgrounds to train as journalists’ (PA, 2016). However,
as our survey indicates, there is still room for improvement.
Tabloid coverage of migrants and refugees has been accused
of being ‘racist’ (Lugo-Ocando, 2007) and evoking ‘cultural
di erences . . . as a criterion for exclusion’ (Fox, 2012), and, as
we show in Section 1, UK journalists are less diverse than the
population they serve by several di erent measures.
A related question in our survey concerned the importance of
‘telling stories about the world’, which was regarded as rather
more important than promoting diversity (see Figure 4.7),
perhaps because of how storytelling resonates with journalists.
‘Storytelling’, ‘communication’, and ‘engagement’ were all
suggested several times when we asked journalists to name
three roles they should perform in society.
4.8 CONCLUSIONS
Our survey shows that journalists in the UK believe their roles
in society to be multifaceted. They see themselves as providers
of accurate information, analysis, entertainment, and education;
as conduits of audience expression; as scrutinisers of those in
power; and as promoters of diversity. There is, however, strong
reluctance to be explicitly political. While some importance is
given to campaigning on social issues, and while scrutiny of
politics is important for most, the overwhelming majority say
that opposing government, setting the political agenda, and
even motivating people to participate in political activity are of
little importance in their work.
In how they defi ne their roles in society, UK journalists appear
to be less detached than their colleagues in Austria and
Germany, but also less likely to try to infl uence public opinion
than journalists in Turkey, Egypt, or Indonesia.
24
In due course,
using the data from the 2012–15 Worlds of Journalism study,
25
we hope to be able to make a detailed comparison of UK
journalists’ role perceptions and those of journalists in scores of
other countries.
There are hints in our data that journalists’ role perceptions
may be changing in light of some of the disruption journalism
has faced in recent years. For example, our survey shows that
45% of journalists in the UK think that ‘providing the kind of
news that attracts the largest audience’ is ‘very’ or ‘extremely’
important (see Figure 4.6 on previous page). This is an even
higher fi gure than was found among journalists in the United
States in a survey
26
completed in 2008 and 2009, an indication,
perhaps, of how economic pressures are inducing journalists to
treat their audiences less as citizens and more as consumers.
However, despite, or perhaps even because of, the upheavals
of recent years, for journalists in the UK, detachment and
neutrality are still central to their notions of what a journalist
should be. Objectivity is, writes Lichtenberg (2000: 238), ‘a
cornerstone of the professional ideology of journalists in liberal
democracies’. With the profession of journalism being assailed
on several fronts, it is, perhaps, unsurprising that its members
continue to place importance in a concept that, Schudson and
Anderson (2009: 99) argue, acts as a ‘solidarity enhancing and
distinction-creating norm and as a group claim to possess a
unique kind of professional knowledge’.
24
These comparisons were made using data from the Worlds of Journalism pilot study, which asked the same ques ons in these and other countries, although several years
before our survey took place and with smaller sample sizes (WoJ, 2013).
25
www.worldso ournalism.org
26
In that survey, the US leg of the Worlds of Journalism pilot study (WoJ, 2013), the fi gure was 31%.
Figure 4.7: UK journalists’ views on the importance of promoting tolerance and diversity,
December 2015.
6%
18%
10%
13%
19%
23%
30%
23%
35%
23%
Tell stories about the world (n = 686)
Promote tolerance and cultural
diversity (n = 681)
Unimportant Of little importance Somewhat important Very important Extremely important
34
FIGURE 4.7: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF PROMOTING TOLERANCE
AND DIVERSITY, DECEMBER 2015.
REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
Our survey asked journalists their views on changes in
journalism over time, with a particular focus on the last fi ve
years. To ensure answers were given with a degree of authority,
only journalists with at least fi ve years’ work experience were
polled. In fact most of those who answered these questions had
chalked up signifi cantly more time in the profession, an average
of more than 20 years. The questions covered a range of topics,
and the results have been grouped into the following themes:
• journalism education and skills;
• the infl uence of the audience and social media;
• editorial freedom, popularism, and competitive pressures;
• advertising, ethics, profi t-making, and PR;
• journalism’s relevance and credibility.
5.1 JOURNALISM
EDUCATION AND SKILLS
Our survey shows that a high and growing proportion of
journalists are learning the trade at university. In the last half
decade 64% of those entering the profession had a bachelor’s
or master’s degree (or some other university training) in
journalism or a related fi eld, compared with 51% in the previous
fi ve-year period, and 41% of all of those in the profession. It is
perhaps surprising then that almost as many journalists believe
the infl uence of journalism education has weakened over
the last fi ve years as believe its infl uence has strengthened
(see Figure 5.1). This prompts questions about the nature
of journalism education in the UK. For example, is it simply
replicating traditional on-the-job training rather than, as many
educators claim, producing a di erent sort of journalist, the
so-called ‘refl ective practitioner’ (see e.g. Falmouth University,
n.d.)?
There may, however, be other explanations for journalists’
uncertainty about the infl uence of journalism education; for
example, a belief that there are more powerful infl uences
at work, such as profi t-making pressures and advertising
considerations. We will consider whether these have become
more or less powerful over time later in this section.
27
Although UK journalists are not in agreement about whether
an increase in the proportion of university-educated journalists
JOURNALISM
AND CHANGE
NEIL THURMAN
27
And in Section 6 we examine the current overall balance of infl uences on journalist’s work.
Figure 5.1: UK journalists’ views on changes in the influence of journalism education, and
the importance of technical skills and of having a university degree and/or a degree in
journalism or a related field, December 2015.
4%
6%
5%
11%
7%
14%
8%
24%
8%
46%
45%
24%
40%
24%
27%
31%
41%
10%
16%
9%
Importance of technical
skills (n = 587)
Importance of having a degree in
journalism or a related field (n = 540)
Importance of having a
university degree (n = 542)
Influence of journalism
education (n = 505)*
Weakened/
decreased a lot
Somewhat weakened/
decreased
Did not change Somewhat strengthened/
increased
Strengthened/
increased a lot
* Participants were asked about the strengthening/weakening of this influence ‘during the past five years’.
34
35/
FIGURE 5.1: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON CHANGES IN THE INFLUENCE OF JOURNALISM
EDUCATION, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNICAL SKILLS AND OF HAVING A UNIVERSITY
DEGREE AND/OR A DEGREE IN JOURNALISM OR A RELATED FIELD, DECEMBER 2015.
* Participants were asked about the strengthening/weakening of this infl uence ‘during the past fi ve years’.
in the profession has resulted in any strengthening of the
infl uence of journalism education, more believe the importance
of (1) having a degree, and (2) having a degree in journalism
or a related fi eld, has increased over time than believe it has
decreased (see Figure 5.1 on previous page). This suggests
that journalism education is viewed as useful as a means to
‘get in the door’, but is of less infl uence once the threshold to
employment has been crossed. Such an assessment is in line
with the views of many academics who study the sociology of
journalism and talk about the relative invariability of newsroom
culture, which helps explain ‘uniformity and conformity among
news workers’ and provides those workers ‘with defenses to
withstand pressure for change’ (Singer, 2004).
UK journalists overwhelmingly believe that the importance
of technical skills has increased over time (see Figure 5.1
on previous page), which prompts questions about whether
and where opportunities to learn such skills are being made
available. Given the ambivalence about the infl uence of
journalism education it may be that more providers of such
education should make state-of-the-art technical training a part
of their formal degree programmes. One example of where
this has happened to good e ect is at Goldsmiths College,
University of London, whose MA/MSc in Digital Journalism
includes technical training in advanced web, mobile, and
visualisation technologies including JavaScript, Python, and
PHP (Goldsmiths, n.d.).
28
5.2 THE INFLUENCE OF
THE AUDIENCE AND
SOCIAL MEDIA
Sub-questions in our survey related to changes in the infl uence of
• content from ‘users’,
• social media,
• the audience involvement in news production,
and to changes in journalists’ interactions with their audiences.
Our results across all four areas show that most journalists
believe the infl uence or importance of audiences and other
users, and of their content, has strengthened or increased
over time (see Figure 5.2). The strongest trend related to
social media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, which
an overwhelming majority (80%) of journalists thought had
strengthened in infl uence ‘a lot’ over the last fi ve years. Indeed,
out of all the 23 areas of possible change in journalism that we
asked our respondents to comment on, the infl uence of social
media was thought to have increased the most.
This confi rms the fi ndings of other research that has reported
how journalists believe social media have become ‘an
incredibly important source’ that is used ‘constantly in all
stories’ (Thurman et al., 2016). Such comments sit in contrast to
the apparent infrequency with which social media are quoted
in news stories (see e.g. Broersma and Graham, 2013). This
discrepancy between journalists’ self-proclaimed dependence
on social media sources and the sporadic appearance of
those sources in news content may be explained by the fact
that social media are ‘often used as a tip-o mechanism, with
journalists corroborating the information elsewhere’ (Thurman
et al., 2016). Social media are, of course, also distribution
mechanisms for stories as well as sources of information for
them. In the UK, 28% of regular online news consumers now
come across news stories on social media in a typical week
(Newman, 2015: 76), 19% follow a news organisation on social
media, and 14% follow at least one journalist (ibid. 83). This
disseminating function of social media is likely to be another
reason why journalists so strongly believe that the infl uence of
social media has grown in the last fi ve years.
It is interesting to note that journalists believe their interactions
with their audiences have not increased to the same extent as
the importance of social media or of user-generated content
(see Figure 5.2). This distinction is subtle but important,
because it is an indication that online communication
technologies, including social media platforms, are more
important to journalists as a source of content than as a
Figure 5.2: UK journalists’ views on changes in the influence or importance of social media,
audience interaction, and user-generated content, December 2015.
5% 16%
22%
6%
14%
48%
36%
38%
18%
26%
56%
26%
80%
Influence of audience involvement
in news production (n = 572)*
Influence of user-generated content
such as blogs (n = 589)*
Interactions of journalists with
their audiences (n = 573)
Influence of social media, such as
Twitter and Facebook (n = 594)*
* Participants were asked about the strengthening/weakening of these influences ‘during the past five years’.
Weakened/
decreased a lot
Somewhat weakened/
decreased
Did not change Somewhat strengthened/
increased
Strengthened/
increased a lot
FIGURE 5.2: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON CHANGES IN THE INFLUENCE OR IMPORTANCE
OF SOCIAL MEDIA, AUDIENCE INTERACTION, AND USER-GENERATED CONTENT, DECEMBER
2015.
* Participants were asked about the strengthening/weakening of these infl uences ‘during the past fi ve years’.
28
Disclosure: one of the authors of this report was the External Examiner of this degree programme from its launch until 2015.
29
Some news sites, including Reuters, CNN, and the Chicago Sun-Times, ‘have abandoned comments altogether or heavily restricted them’ and, in Jan. 2016, the
Guardian decided to limit or prohibit comments on stories about ’race, immigration and Islam’ (Pritchard, 2016).
36
REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
Figure 5.3: UK journalists’ views on changes in their editorial freedom and on the influence
o
f audience research, audience feedback, and their competitors. December 2015.
8%
10%
4%
33%
19%
21%
27%
40%
40%
50%
42%
17%
30%
27%
27%
Influence of competition
(n = 582)*
Influence of audience
feedback (n = 579)*
Influence of audience
research (n = 563)*
Journalists’ freedom to make
editorial decisions (n = 542)
* Participants were asked about the strengthening/weakening of these influences ‘during the past five years’.
Weakened/
decreased a lot
Somewhat weakened/
decreased
Did not change Somewhat strengthened/
increased
Strengthened/
increased a lot
FIGURE 5.3: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON CHANGES IN THEIR EDITORIAL FREEDOM AND ON
THE INFLUENCE OF AUDIENCE RESEARCH, AUDIENCE FEEDBACK, AND THEIR COMPETITORS.
DECEMBER 2015.
* Participants were asked about the strengthening/weakening of these infl uences ‘during the past fi ve years’.
means by which they can build an ongoing dialogue with their
audiences.
29
Such an observation is not new. Hermida and
Thurman (2008) wrote of how the editors they interviewed
in 2006 valued user-generated content ‘as a digital form of
newsgathering, rather than as a way of allowing readers to
express themselves’. In the ten years since then much has
changed, not least the launch of Twitter and Facebook’s move
from niche to mainstream network. However, we see continuity
between then and now in journalists’ responses to their
audiences and to non-professionally produced content.
5.3 EDITORIAL FREEDOM,
POPULARISM, AND
COMPETITIVE PRESSURES
About twice as many journalists believe that their freedom to
make editorial decisions has decreased over time as believe
it has increased (see Figure 5.3). There are a number of clues
in our survey data that might explain why this is so. First,
journalists believe that the infl uence of audience research and
audience feedback has strengthened over the last fi ve years
(see Figure 5.3).
Historically, decisions on news content were driven more by
journalists’ intuition than by a deep understanding of how
audiences consumed content. The audience was, writes Philip
Napoli (2011), ‘a somewhat distant abstraction’. That era is
now clearly over. The increasing number of online readers,
combined with the availability of sophisticated means of
monitoring their behaviour – such as Chartbeat,
30
NewsWhip,
31
and Parse.ly
32
– has given journalists and editors access to
data of unprecedented breadth and depth, including details of
which stories are being read on their own sites or shared on
social media. Such information is increasingly being used in
newsrooms to help decide which stories to produce, publish,
and prioritise. For example:
• Edson Tandoc (2014) found that at large online newsrooms
in the US, stories with ‘good’ levels of web tra c ‘would get
updates and follow-ups’ and ‘topics that have done well in
the past also tend to get assigned more’.
• Journalists at the UK regional news publisher Trinity Mirror
have been told to ‘focus relentlessly on the content that
we know gives us the most return for our e ort . . . and
[be] ruthless about content that doesn’t’, with regular
performance assessments ‘taking into account audience
tra c’ to their content (Ponsford, 2015).
• By contrast, other publishers who have also developed
sophisticated approaches to audience data – like the BBC,
the Financial Times, and the Guardian – insist that editorial
judgement has to be central and that the point of analytics is
to be data-informed, not data-driven (Cherubini and Nielsen,
2016).
The use of such data puts obvious limits on journalists’ own
editorial decision-making, partially replacing their own news
judgement with processes that attempt to match output to
popular preferences. This change can bring to light important
stories that, for various reasons, the mainstream media has
ignored or been slow to cover. One recent example was the
so-called Chapel Hill shootings, where three young Muslims,
all members of the same family, were killed in North Carolina.
Using computational tools that monitor social media activity,
a student of one of the authors of this report observed how,
initially, the ‘story appeared prominently on social media
channels before there was any mention of it on US mainstream
media websites or TV channels’ (personal communication,
February 2015). Eventually the mainstream media responded,
giving the story signifi cant coverage. However, tailoring news to
the tastes of readers may also lead to a greater preponderance
of non-public-a airs stories. Research by Pablo Boczkowski
(2010: 5) has shown that online news consumers’ preferences
tend towards ‘sports, entertainment, and crime subjects’,
while journalists consider ‘national, business, economic, and
international topics’ more newsworthy.
30
https://chartbeat.com
31
www.newswhip.com
32
www.parsely.com
36
37/JOURNALISM AND CHANGE
Although Boczkowski’s evidence came from a systematic
content analysis that he made – several years ago – of online
news, recent qualitative evidence supports his findings. A survey
by the Press Gazette found that online journalists, including
from the International Business Times and the Daily Express’s
website, were worried about an ‘emphasis on hits over quality’,
about ‘trac-related bonus structure[s]’ creating ‘the wrong
incentives’, and about the ‘shift from proper journalism to . . .
attention-seeking, fact-free, gossipy clickbait’ (Turvill, 2016a).
Another potential explanation for journalists’ belief that their
editorial freedom has been curtailed is the influence of the
competition, which respondents to our survey believe has
strengthened over the last five years (see Figure 5.3 on
previous page).
Although journalists, when not operating as a pack, have
always tried to steal a march on each other, in the pre-digital
era it was much more dicult. Knowing what the competition
was up to in time to respond was, explains Mike Pearce,
former editor of the Thanet Times, usually a matter of accident,
for example ‘an incautious drink-fuelled pub chat between
rival journalists’ or someone involved in the story leaking
it to friends, family, and beyond,
33
perhaps ‘buoyed by the
excitement of knowing they were to appear in the papers’
(personal communication, 2 February 2016).
With its breaking news feeds on Twitter, live blogs updated
by the minute, and homepages edited around the clock, the
contemporary news environment is very dierent. It has never
been easier for journalists to monitor the competition. As
with the influence of audience research, the rising influence
of competition is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it
allows journalists to easily stay up-to-date with breaking news
stories and, via formats such as live blogs, give their readers
more comprehensive coverage by aggregating content from
a diverse set of sources, including their competitors.
34
On
the other hand, close monitoring of the competition may
reduce diversity in overall news output. Returning to Pablo
Boczkowski’s 2010 study of online newspapers in Argentina
and the US, we see how journalists were observed ‘incessantly
monitor[ing] coverage at competitors’ sites’ (2010: 3) and
imitating their content. Over time Boczkowski observed an
‘increase in the similarity of print newspapers’ stories’ that, he
says, coincided ‘with the timing of the growth in the volume
and frequency of online news publishing’. Boczkowski also
found ‘a high level of homogenisation in the stories published
by both print and online outlets in the contemporary setting’
(2010: 4). Again, there is more recent qualitative evidence that
supports these findings. For example, a senior employee of
the most-visited English-language newspaper website in the
world, MailOnline, ‘bemoans [the] pressure to produce endless
copy [and a] culture of copying other people’s journalism’, and
another online journalist dislikes having to ‘collate crap from the
internet instead of doing real research’ (Turvill, 2016a).
5.4 ADVERTISING, ETHICS,
PROFIT-MAKING, AND PR
Our survey shows that journalists believe the influence of
the profit motive has strengthened over the last five years
(see Figure 5.4a). This comes as no surprise given the well-
documented falls in the circulation of newspapers, and the
diculties of monetising news online. In times of shrinking
revenues, resources are often cut; and there have been plenty
of examples in the context of the UK news media.
• On 25 January 2016, Guardian News and Media announced
plans to cut £54 million from their annual budget to curb
losses (Ponsford, 2016a).
• In February 2016, James Harding, the BBC’s head of news,
estimated that BBC News would face £80 million in cuts
‘over the next four years’ (Martinson, 2016).
• Johnston Press, the second-largest publisher of local
newspapers in the UK, halved its editorial sta headcount
between 2009 and 2015 (Turvill, 2016b).
The eects of such cuts can clearly be seen in our survey, with
a large majority of journalists telling us that their hours have
increased – more than a third say by ‘a lot’ – and an even larger
majority saying that the time available for researching stories
has decreased – again, more than a third say by a ‘lot’ (see
Figure 5.4a).
35
The eects of such resource limitations can manifest in various
ways. For example:
• a greater reliance on public relations (PR) material,
• a closer relationship with advertisers, or
• trying to attract more readers with more sensational content.
Our survey indicates that, over the last five years, such eects
may have been felt more strongly.
UK journalists believe that the influence of PR has increased
over the past five years (see Figure 5.4b). This is a worrying
33
Pearce recalls how: ‘one editor, in a coastal town where immigration was a major concern, had worked for weeks to set up a front page exclusive, in which Tony
Blair would defend his party’s open-door policy. Days before it was to appear, the town’s Labour MP was involved in a charity event with the editor of the rival
local paper. The MP not only revealed to the editor that the opposition had a great story, but oered to send him a copy of what Blair would say! With an earlier
publication time, he was able to turn his rival’s hard-earned “exclusive” into a scoop of his own.’
34
Thurman and Schapals (2016) found that live blogs added external links to sources they quoted ‘an average of 22 times per live blog’. This compared with ‘an average of
just 0.46 links in “traditional” online articles covering the same story’. And even when ‘the dierence in word length is factored in, live blogs still linked out four
times more frequently than traditional online articles’.
35
Our survey gives a snapshot of journalists’ willingness to publish stories with unverified content. We found that, on ‘an important story’, 1% thought it was ‘always’
justified and 24% that it was ‘justified on occasion’. There is evidence that new formats for news, such as live blogs, encourage the publication of unverified content
(see e.g. Thurman and Walters, 2013) and that resource pressures are making it more likely: a regional deputy editor told a Press Gazee survey that: ‘I often feel
rushed to complete stories, which has led to mistakes and several complaints’ (Turvill, 2016a). Given that our survey shows journalists think being accurate, almost
above all else, defines their role in society (see Section 4) they – and their employers – must be careful to adapt to technological changes and financial constraints
in ways that are compatible with this guiding principle.
38REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
fi nding given the extent to which the UK’s quality newspapers
and radio and television news programmes were already
drawing heavily on PR material by the start of this period. In
2006 as many as 40% of their stories were wholly, mainly, or
partially based on PR material (Lewis et al., 2008). The apparent
rise in infl uence of PR in recent years – from an already high
base – is prompting a backlash from journalists, and even
from some in the PR industry. For example, the BBC’s former
Business and Economics Editor, Robert Peston (2014), lamented
the fact that ‘newspapers are fi lled with reports based on
spurious PR-generated surveys and polls, simply to save time
and money’ and called the ‘unhealthy deals’ done between
journalists and PRs ‘hideous and degrading’. Even some PR
practitioners are worried that they may be biting the hand that
feeds them. Getting coverage in the media for their clients is
only of benefi t if readers believe in the credibility of journalism,
a credibility that is threatened by excessive PR activity (Jackson
and Moloney, 2015).
The increasing use of PR material as an information or editorial
subsidy may be one response to resource constraints in the
newsroom. Another is to pay greater attention to the demands
of advertisers in order to capture or retain the revenue they
bring. Our survey shows UK journalists overwhelmingly
believe that the infl uence of advertising considerations has
strengthened over the last fi ve years (see Figure 5.4b). Such
considerations sometimes result in editorial choices being
made, in e ect, by advertisers.
36
For example, a business-
to-business editor who responded to a survey by the Press
Gazette said that the journalists in the company where he
works ‘have no say over what goes into the magazine – the
content is dictated by the clients’ (Turvill, 2015c). While this
extreme level of commercial infl uence may be relatively rare
– more common, according to the Press Gazette, in business-
to-business journalism (ibid.) – evidence of the infl uence of
advertisers is evident in all areas of journalism. For example,
the so-called ‘Chinese Wall’ between advertising and editorial
content has become harder to discern in the lengthening
shadow of ‘native advertising’, where news outlets publish
(and sometimes write) editorial-style stories whose selection
and framing have been decided by sponsors.
37
Despite some
of the outlets involved, like the New York Times, ‘vigorously
Figure 5.4a: UK journalists’ views on changes in the influence of profit-making pressures
and to their average working hours and time available for story research, December 2015.
36% 50% 11%
18%
21%
43%
43%
38%
34%
Time available for researching
stories (n = 579)
Average working hours of journalists
(n = 558)
Influence of profit-making pressures
(n = 561)*
* Participants were asked about the strengthening/weakening of this influence ‘during the past five years’.
Weakened/
decreased a lot
Somewhat weakened/
decreased
Did not change Somewhat strengthened/
increased
Strengthened/
increased a lot
Figure 5.4b: UK journalists’ views on changes in the influence of public relations,
advertising considerations, ethical standards, and pressure towards sensationalism, 2010–
2015.
7%
8%
22%
3%
4%
38%
21%
29%
34%
31%
38%
41%
41%
21%
12%
25%
20%
Pressure towards sensational news
(n = 573)
Ethical standards
(n = 567)
Advertising considerations
(n = 538)
Public relations
(n = 569)
Weakened a lot Somewhat weakened Did not change Somewhat strengthened Strengthened a lot
FIGURE 5.4a: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON CHANGES IN THE INFLUENCE OF PROFIT-MAKING
PRESSURES AND TO THEIR AVERAGE WORKING HOURS AND TIME AVAILABLE FOR STORY
RESEARCH, DECEMBER 2015.
FIGURE 5.4b: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON CHANGES IN THE INFLUENCE OF PUBLIC
RELATIONS, ADVERTISING CONSIDERATIONS, ETHICAL STANDARDS, AND PRESSURE
TOWARDS SENSATIONALISM, 2010–2015.
* Participants were asked about the strengthening/weakening of this infl uence ‘during the past fi ve years’.
36
Kevin Williams writes that in the post-war era advertisers have had ‘considerable infl uence over the British press’ (2010: 207), although less through ‘direct pressure
brought to bear on the editorial content’ than in determining the ‘shape’ of newspapers in order that, with their special features and sections, they can ‘reach
particular target groups’ of interest to advertisers.
37
Advertising-sponsored features are not new, Kevin Williams (2010: 208) notes their ‘growth . . . in the quality press during the post-war period’.
38
39/JOURNALISM AND CHANGE
refuting the notion that native advertising . . . compromise[s]
the wall that exists between editorial and advertising’ (Levien,
2014), surveys have shown that 43% of Americans have felt
disappointed or deceived when they found out content was
sponsored by a brand or company (Newman, 2015: 104), and in
January 2016, BuzzFeed UK was ‘censured by the Advertising
Standards Authority for failing to clearly label paid-for content’
(Ponsford, 2016b).
In light of the increasing pressure from PR fi rms and from
advertisers, what should we make of our survey’s fi nding
that more UK journalists believe that ethical standards have
strengthened over the last fi ve years than believe they have
weakened (see Figure 5.4b on previous page)? We would
argue that such a strengthening is likely to relate to particular
practices, such as respecting the privacy of individuals’
personal communications, that have come under scrutiny
as a result of the revelations involving phone-hacking at the
News of the World and other newspapers and the resulting
Leveson Inquiry. Whether ethical standards in other areas, such
as keeping editorial content free of commercial infl uence or
properly acknowledging the sources of material used in stories,
have also strengthened remains a question of debate.
5.5 JOURNALISM’S
RELEVANCE AND
CREDIBILITY
Given the unprecedented scrutiny of the ethics of UK
journalism in recent years it is not surprising that an
overwhelming proportion of journalists believe their profession
has lost credibility over time (see Figure 5.5). Nevertheless,
our survey does provide some reasons for optimism. More
journalists believe that the relevance of journalism for society
has increased over time than believe it has decreased (see
Figure 5.5).
So, in spite of the challenges, there remains a belief in the
fundamental value of journalism and in the role of journalists. As
we discuss in Section 4, our survey reveals that UK journalists
most commonly believe that their role in society is to hold those
in power to account, to be accurate, and to provide information
– all functions that play to a traditional concept of journalism as
a powerful, responsible, and relevant force in society.
5.6 CONCLUSIONS
In this section we have reported UK journalists’ views on the
extent of changes to their working conditions and audience
interactions and to the importance of skills and education in
the profession. We have also described journalists’ perceptions
of the degree to which internal and external infl uences on
their work have strengthened or weakened over the last
fi ve years. These infl uences include commercial pressures;
technological and social developments; and ethics, rules, and
standards. The results show a profession undergoing signifi cant
change and raise questions about journalism education,
editorial independence and accuracy, and media content
plurality. At the same time, however, we see some continuity
in journalists’ views about how infl uential – or not – formal
journalistic education is, the value of audience interaction,
and the relevance of journalism for society. Our reliance on a
survey of journalists’ perceptions of change does, of course,
paint a rather one-dimensional picture, which is why we have
tried to triangulate our results by making reference to other
research on media content, news consumption patterns, and
news production routines. Even so, our survey raises as many
questions as it answers and highlights the necessity for more
research, in particular on the use of social media by journalists;
the e ects of audience data, PR activities, and commercial
pressures on news content; and the application of ethics, rules,
and standards in a post-Leveson era.
40
Figure 5.5: UK journalists’ views on changes in the credibility of journalism and its
relevance for society, December 2015.
4%
16%
17%
50%
42%
24%
25%
7%
12%
The relevance of journalism for society
(n = 579)
The credibility of journalism
(n = 587)
Decreased a lot Somewhat decreased Did not change Somewhat increased Increased a lot
FIGURE 5.5: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON CHANGES IN THE CREDIBILITY OF JOURNALISM
AND ITS RELEVANCE FOR SOCIETY, DECEMBER 2015.
REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
Without professional autonomy, journalists cannot provide their
audiences with accurate and impartial information. It follows
that knowing about the social, economic, organisational,
and political forces that limit journalists’ autonomy – and,
as a consequence, shape their work – is fundamental to
understanding the dynamics of contemporary journalism.
In Section 5 we discussed how some of the infl uences on
journalists’ work have changed over time. What follows here
is complementary, a description and analysis of the situation
in December 2015. This section examines the degrees of
infl uence journalists in the UK believe the following forces have
on their work:
• personal values, religious considerations, and ethics;
• professional and social relationships;
• editorial policy, media regulation, and censorship;
• economic factors and the audience;
• information access and time limits;
• political and economic actors.
6.1 PERSONAL
VALUES, RELIGIOUS
CONSIDERATIONS, AND
ETHICS
Our survey shows that journalists consider their personal values
and beliefs to have a strong infl uence on their work. More
than half (52%) think their values and beliefs are ‘extremely’ or
‘very’ infl uential, whereas only 12% believe they have little or no
infl uence (see Figure 6.1)
.
Despite religion often playing a central role in people’s values
and beliefs, our survey shows that religious considerations
are not perceived as a strong source of infl uence. Indeed, the
overwhelming majority of journalists (76%) think religion has
little or no infl uence on their work, with only 8% considering it
‘very’ or ‘extremely’ infl uential (see Figure 6.1). This result is not
unexpected given that journalists are less religious than the
general population: 61% are not members of a formal faith and,
irrespective of any religious a liation, almost three-quarters
consider religion unimportant (52%) or of little importance (22%)
in their lives (see Section 1.3 for a fuller analysis).
Journalism ethics are perceived as playing a much more
important role, actually the strongest role among all the sources
INFLUENCES ON
JOURNALISTS’ WORK
ALESSIO CORNIA AND NEIL THURMAN
40
41/
Figure 6.1: UK journalists’ views on the influence of personal values, religious
considerations, and ethics on their work, December 2015.
4%
48%
8%
28%
4%
37%
16%
19%
27%
6%
37%
25%
40%
Personal values and beliefs (n = 671)
Religious considerations (n = 555)
Journalism ethics (n = 687)
Not influential Of little influence Somewhat influential Very influential Extremely influential
FIGURE 6.1: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON THE INFLUENCE OF PERSONAL VALUES, RELIGIOUS
CONSIDERATIONS, AND ETHICS ON THEIR WORK, DECEMBER 2015.
of infl uence considered by this study. More than three-quarters
of journalists (77%) believe the infl uence of ethics on their work is
‘extremely’ or ‘very’ important (see Figure 6.1 on previous page).
Our survey suggests that the perceived importance of ethics
does not depend on the type of medium journalists practise in
(print, broadcasting, or online), nor on the reach (local, national,
or transnational) of the outlet they work for. The specifi c practices
journalists consider to be ethical or not, and the circumstances
when journalists believe deviations from established ethical
standards can be justifi ed, are described in Section 8.
6.2 PROFESSIONAL AND
SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
Our survey asked journalists to evaluate the infl uence of
professional and social relationships on their work. Not
surprisingly, journalists believe their ‘editorial supervisors and
higher editors’ exercise the greatest infl uence over their work:
46% consider them ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ infl uential, whereas
only 13% believe their superiors have little or no infl uence (see
Figure 6.2).
As Figure 6.2 shows, managers of news organisations are
seen as less infl uential: almost as many journalists think
managers have little or no infl uence (33%) as think they are
‘very’ or ‘extremely’ infl uential (29%). The least infl uential
working relationship is perceived to be with the owners of the
news outlet, who are described as having little or no infl uence
by more than half (52%) of UK journalists (see Figure 6.2).
Our data suggest that owners’ infl uence is felt di erently by
journalists of di erent ranks. A greater proportion of those of
higher rank think that owners are somewhat infl uential, and
a lower proportion believe they have little or no infl uence.
38
This di erence may be explained by the fact that those in
higher ranks have more contact with proprietors. Owners can,
however, still exert infl uence on rank and fi le journalists via the
supervisors and managers whom those rank and fi le journalists
perceive as being very infl uential.
Previous studies on newsmaking have shown how journalists’
working routines and interpretative patterns are usually deeply
infl uenced by their daily relationships with colleagues (Crouse,
2003; Sigal, 1973; Tuchman, 1978). These relationships can
be both with peers inside the newsroom and with journalists
working for other media organisations. For example, reporters
covering a specifi c news beat or on an overseas assignment
may spend a large amount of time with journalists from other
news organisations. They are likely to cover the same stories,
experience the same kind of problems – with sources and
supervisors, perhaps – and share ideas on how to solve them.
Our data show that interpersonal relationships with colleagues
are perceived as quite an important source of infl uence over
journalists’ work: 34% believe that their peers on the sta
are ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ infl uential, while only 22% take the
opposite view (see Figure 6.2). However, the infl uence of
journalists working for other media is considered much weaker:
only 16% of journalists believe they are ‘very’ or ‘extremely’
infl uential, while 43% think they have little or no infl uence (see
Figure 6.2). The stronger infl uence of peers on the sta may be
explained by the fact that most journalists spend most of their
working hours with colleagues in the newsroom, rather than
at other locations where they can meet journalists from other
media. This result provides a hint, perhaps, that journalistic
work is now relatively desk-bound, as a consequence of
resource limitations, the ease with which it is possible to
experience events virtually, and changes in news formats.
39
Journalists’ relationships with news sources are perceived
as having a strong infl uence: 43% evaluate them as ‘very’ or
‘extremely’ infl uential, while only 24% believe they exercise little
or no infl uence over their work (see Figure 6.2). Early studies on
38
26% of rank and fi le journalists think owners are somewhat infl uential, while 38% of senior managers do. 57% of rank and fi le journalists think owners have little or
no infl uence, while 40% of senior managers do.
39
For example, Andrew Sparrow says that it can be easier to cover politics for the Guardian’s ‘Politics Live’ live blog from his desk with ‘a 24 inch Apple Mac . . .
television . . . and reference books’ than from a laptop in Westminster with an unreliable Wi-Fi connection (Thurman and Walters, 2013).
42
Figure 6.2: UK journalists’ views on the influence of professional and social relationships on
their work, December 2015.
4%
12%
25%
6%
15%
9%
26%
9%
21%
27%
16%
28%
15%
33%
41%
38%
29%
44%
41%
33%
32%
33%
20%
11%
27%
14%
32%
7%
13%
9%
8%
7%
11%
Editorial supervisors and higher editors (n = 656)
Managers of the news organisation (n = 642)
Owners of the news organisation (n = 618)
Peers on the sta
(n = 670)
Colleagues in other media (n = 696)
Relationships with news sources (n = 690)
Friends, acquaintances, and family (n = 695)
Not influential Of little influence Somewhat influential Very influential Extremely influential
FIGURE 6.2: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON THE INFLUENCE OF PROFESSIONAL AND SOCIAL
RELATIONSHIPS ON THEIR WORK, DECEMBER 2015.
REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
newsmaking (Gans, 1979; Blumler and Gurevitch, 1981) as well
as more recent research on UK journalists (Davis, 2009) have
described the relationship between sources and reporters as
a two-way exchange, a mutually benefi cial relationship where
sources seek out journalists to promote themselves and their
activities, and journalists develop sources to gain o -the-record
and behind-the-scenes material. Gans likens this symbiotic
relationship to a dance: ‘Although it takes two to tango, either
sources or journalists can lead, but more often than not sources
do the leading’ (1979: 116).
Our data show that such professional relationships are more
infl uential on journalists’ work than their social interactions are.
Only 9% of journalists consider their friends, acquaintances,
and families to be ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ infl uential, whereas more
than a half (59%) believe they have little or no infl uence over
their work (see Figure 6.2).
6.3 EDITORIAL POLICY,
MEDIA REGULATION, AND
CENSORSHIP
News organisations’ editorial policy, and media law and
regulation, are believed by journalists to be among the
strongest sources of infl uence on their work. Editorial policy
defi nes a news organisation’s principles and standards, guiding
editorial decision-making and content creation. It refl ects the
organisation’s core values, the pertinent legislation, and the
relevant ethical codes of practice. It is not surprising that 64%
of journalists consider the editorial policy of the organisation
they work for to be ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ infl uential, while
only 9% believe it is of little or no infl uence (see Figure 6.3).
Respondents expressed similar views on the infl uence of
media law and regulation: 63% believe the UK media’s legal
and regulatory framework is ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ infl uential (see
Figure 6.3). The extent to which UK journalists’ own ethical
standards correspond with the professional codes of conduct
they work under are analysed in Section 8. Finally, censorship
is among the least infl uential sources of infl uence over UK
journalists. Two-thirds consider it to have little or no infl uence
(see Figure 6.3).
6.4 ECONOMIC FACTORS
AND THE AUDIENCE
Advertising considerations and profi t expectations are
evaluated as weak sources of infl uence: only about 15% of
UK journalists defi ne them as ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ infl uential,
whereas over half consider them to have little or no infl uence
(see Figure 6.4a). How does this fi nding sit with the fact (as
discussed in Section 5.4) that UK journalists believe the
infl uence on journalism of advertising and, especially, of profi t-
making pressures has considerably strengthened in the last few
years? We believe this di erence may, in part, be to do with the
separation between wider developments in the industry and
journalists’ day-to-day work.
42
43/
Figure 6.3: UK journalists’ views on the influence of editorial policy, media regulation, and
censorship on their work, December 2015.
4%
34%
7%
9%
32%
27%
24%
19%
40%
34%
10%
24%
29%
5%
Editorial policy (n = 681)
Media laws and regulation (n = 692)
Censorship (n = 662)
Not influential Of little influence Somewhat influential Very influential Extremely influential
Figure 6.4a: UK journalists’ views on the influence of advertising considerations, profit
expectations, and competition on their work, December 2015.
26%
25%
6%
32%
28%
16%
29%
31%
47%
10%
12%
27%
4%
4%
6%
Advertising considerations (n = 612)
Profit expectations (n = 611)
Competing news organisations (n = 695)
Not influential Of little influence Somewhat influential Very influential Extremely influential
FIGURE 6.3: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON THE INFLUENCE OF EDITORIAL POLICY, MEDIA
REGULATION, AND CENSORSHIP ON THEIR WORK, DECEMBER 2015.
FIGURE 6.4a: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON THE INFLUENCE OF ADVERTISING
CONSIDERATIONS, PROFIT EXPECTATIONS, AND COMPETITION ON THEIR WORK, DECEMBER
2015.
INFLUENCES ON JOURNALISTS’ WORK
These wider developments include news organisations’
adoption of ‘native advertising’,
40
which is considered by many
publishers to be one possible response to falls in advertising
revenue and the rise of ad blocking.
41
The New York Times,
Washington Post, and Guardian have, for example, all created
new teams to produce native advertising (Newman, 2015).
Although such developments are signifi cant, most journalists
in our survey consider themselves to still be relatively isolated
from commercial pressures. This may be due to the fact
that, even at news organisations that have adopted native
advertising, for example, the Wall Street Journal and Hu ngton
Post UK, there is still a clear separation between journalists and
those creating branded content (Marshall, 2013).
Competition is considered a stronger source of infl uence than
advertising and the profi t motive, with a third of journalists
believing it to be ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ infl uential and 22% taking
the opposite view. As we discuss in Section 5.3, journalists
believe the infl uence of the competition has strengthened
considerably over recent years, though keeping an eye on
competitors has always characterised journalists’ work. Early
studies described how reporters monitored the topics their
colleagues were working on to avoid being rebuked by
supervisors for having missed a story (Gans, 1979; Tunstall,
1971; Sigal, 1973). The digital news environment makes such
monitoring even easier. Editors monitor competing news
organisations’ websites, and 24-hour TV news channels play in
the background in many newsrooms. A recent study by Chadha
and Wells (2016) concludes that editorial imperatives to match
competitors have been vastly amplifi ed by editors’ access to
Twitter. One reporter expressed frustration with the modern
social-media-dominated working environment: ‘every reporter
has the experience of having a boss using Twitter to look over
their shoulder’, pushing him or her to cover the same stories
their competitors are tweeting about (Chadha and Wells, 2016:
8). As discussed in Section 5.3, the increased infl uence of
competing news organisations and pressure from editors not
to miss anything may be leading to a culture of imitation where
there is a greater degree of similarity between the content
published by competing news organisations.
No signifi cant di erences between local, regional, national,
and transnational media emerged from our analysis. However,
di erences were found between media types. Compared with
broadcast and print journalists, those working online feel the
infl uence of the competition on their work to a greater extent.
42
This is likely to be due to the ease with which online journalists
can monitor their competitors’ digital platforms.
Our survey shows the strong infl uence of audience research
and audience feedback on journalists’ work. Over 40% of
journalists consider audience research and their interactions
with the public to be ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ infl uential, whereas
only 20% or less think they are of little or no infl uence (see
Figure 6.4b). As we discuss in Section 5.2, journalists also
believe these sources of infl uence have strengthened
considerably over the last few years.
Traditionally, decisions about which events would become news
or which aspects of a story deserve emphasis were driven by
journalists’ own evaluations or by those of their supervisors.
These judgements were often based on their subjective
understanding of what would be interesting or important to
their audience (Gans, 1979). In recent years, news organisations
have increased their use of quantitative data on audience
behaviour. A recent report on editorial analytics by Cherubini
and Nielsen (2016) revealed how UK news organisations such
as the Guardian and the BBC are developing audience teams
within their newsrooms. New job roles like ‘audience editor’
and ‘growth editor’ have been created in an attempt to better
inform editorial departments about their audiences’ tastes.
Despite news organisations being aware that quantitative
analyses need to be supplemented by qualitative editorial
judgement, it is undeniable that data-informed decision-
making is strongly infl uencing journalists’ work. In a similar
way, the growing use of social media and other digital tools
for self-expression has given journalists more opportunities to
monitor and interact with their audiences. Our survey confi rms
the strong and growing infl uence of audience research and
feedback on the daily work of UK journalists.
6.5 INFORMATION
ACCESS AND TIME LIMITS
It is not surprising that the availability of newsgathering
resources, access to information, and time limits are listed
among the most important sources of infl uence on journalists’
work (see Figure 6.5). The availability of newsgathering
resources – such as news agency feeds, correspondents on
40
Native advertising is branded content, sponsored by advertisers, that matches the editorial format of the platform where it appears.
41
Ad-blocking software removes advertising content from web pages. 39% of regular online news users in the UK say they employ ad-blocking software to screen
out ads (Newman, 2015).
42
45% of journalists working only for online media believe that competition is ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ infl uential, while only 13% take the opposite view (n = 89).
44
Figure 6.4b: UK journalists’ views on the influence of the audience on their work, December
2015.
8%
3%
12%
10%
39%
43%
28%
32%
13%
12%
Audience research and data (n = 666)
Feedback from the audience (n = 695)
Not influential Of little influence Somewhat influential Very influential Extremely influential
FIGURE 6.4b: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON THE INFLUENCE OF THE AUDIENCE ON THEIR
WORK, DECEMBER 2015.
REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
location, or high-tech communication tools – is perceived
as ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ infl uential by 60% of journalists.
Respondents’ evaluations vary according to the type of media
they work for and its reach, with journalists who work only
for broadcasting organisations or for news outlets with a
local or regional reach
43
feeling especially strongly about the
importance of the availability of these resources. For broadcast
journalists, this is likely to be due to the often limited availability
of high-quality video and audio content for stories occurring in
di cult-to-reach locations. For journalists addressing local and
regional audiences, this may be due to resource pressures at
what are usually small- and medium-sized news organisations.
Our survey shows that UK journalists overwhelmingly believe
that ‘information access’ has a strong infl uence over their work,
with 66% thinking it ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ infl uential (see Figure
6.5). This proportion rises even higher among journalists who
work only for broadcasting organisations (78%), and those
working for local and regional news outlets (71%). Journalists
face various challenges in accessing information. Data made
available by national governments can, for example, be
inaccurate or incomplete; sources can be reluctant to grant an
interview or an on-the-record statement; and private companies
can deny access to specifi c information about their activities.
Even when information is accessible and complete, the lack
of time that journalists have at their disposal can be a major
obstacle. Time limits are considered ‘very’ or ‘extremely’
infl uential by 64% of UK journalists (see Figure 6.5).
6.6 POLITICAL AND
ECONOMIC ACTORS
Our survey shows that an overwhelming majority of UK
journalists think that political institutions and actors do
not a ect their work. Nearly three-quarters believe that
‘government o cials’ and ‘politicians’ are of little or no
infl uence, and 69% feel the same about ‘pressure groups’
(see Figure 6.6). Together with the ‘military, police, and state
security’, these are considered some of the least infl uential
sources of pressure UK journalists have to deal with. The only
signifi cant variation concerns journalists working for local and
regional media. These journalists are more likely than their
colleagues in national or transnational media to consider
‘politicians’, ‘government o cials’, and the ‘military, police, and
43
74% of journalists who work only for broadcast news outlets (n = 67) and 70% of those working for local/regional media (n = 149) believe that the availability of
newsgathering resources is ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ infl uential, while 10% and 7% respectively take the opposite view.
44
45/
Figure 6.5: UK journalists’ views on the influence of the availability of newsgathering
resources, information access, and time limits on their work, December 2015.
4%
4%
7%
5%
5%
29%
25%
29%
41%
43%
40%
19%
23%
24%
Availability of newsgathering resources (n = 665)
Information access (n = 677)
Time limits (n = 688)
Not influential Of little influence Somewhat influential Very influential Extremely influential
Figure 6.6: UK journalists’ views on the influence of government, politicians, pressure
groups, business people, PR, and the security forces on their work, December 2015.
40%
40%
37%
28%
16%
54%
34%
32%
32%
31%
28%
24%
21%
22%
27%
26%
37%
15%
4%
5%
4%
11%
16%
6%
4%
3%
Government o
cials (n = 678)
Politicians (n = 681)
Pressure groups (n = 686)
Business people (n = 688)
Public relations (n = 691)
The military, police, and state security (n = 676)
Not influential Of little influence Somewhat influential Very influential Extremely influential
FIGURE 6.5: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON THE INFLUENCE OF THE AVAILABILITY OF
NEWSGATHERING RESOURCES, INFORMATION ACCESS, AND TIME LIMITS ON THEIR WORK,
DECEMBER 2015.
FIGURE 6.6: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON THE INFLUENCE OF GOVERNMENT, POLITICIANS,
PRESSURE GROUPS, BUSINESS PEOPLE, PR, AND THE SECURITY FORCES ON THEIR WORK,
DECEMBER 2015.
INFLUENCES ON JOURNALISTS’ WORK
state security’ to be somewhat influential.
44
This is likely to be
due to the more frequent and closer relationships that local
journalists often have with local politicians, public ocials, and
police representatives. Compared with national journalists, local
reporters work within a narrower arena, where newsgathering
activities are based, to a greater extent, on interpersonal
relationships.
The majority (59%) of UK journalists also think that business
people are of little or no influence (see Figure 6.6 on previous
page). However, public relations activities seem to aect UK
journalists to a greater extent. Nearly a fifth of journalists
consider public relations to be ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ influential,
37% think it is somewhat influential, and 44% believe it has little
or no influence (see Figure 6.6 on previous page). As previously
discussed, UK journalists think the influence of PR has
increased significantly over the last few years (see Section 5.5).
6.7 CONCLUSIONS
In this section we have revealed UK journalists’ views on the
social, economic, organisational, and political forces influencing
their work. The results show that journalists perceive the most
important sources of influence to be journalism ethics, editorial
policy, laws and regulations, information access, and the
availability of newsgathering resources. Journalists’ personal
values and beliefs also have influence over their work.
By contrast, UK journalists believe that political forces and
economic imperatives exercise minor influence. Given the
amount of research that has identified the role political and
economic forces have in shaping news content (see e.g.
Benson and Hallin, 2007; Hallin and Mancini, 2004), these
results are somewhat surprising. Other studies (Hanitzsch
et al., 2010; Hanitzsch and Mellado, 2011) have found that
journalists tend to underestimate the influence of political and
economic forces because they are rarely experienced directly.
Instead, they are filtered by news organisations and transmitted
through the hierarchy, manifesting as organisational and
procedural constraints or as a natural part of journalists’ work.
The modest influence that journalists ascribe to political and
economic factors, and the strong influence they ascribe to their
personal values and beliefs, indicate that journalists may be
overestimating the extent of their professional autonomy.
44
58% of journalists working for local or regional media consider politicians to have little or no influence, 35% think they are ‘somewhat’ influential, and 7% ‘very’ or
‘extremely’ influential. The percentages for all journalists are, respectively, 72, 22, and 5. 62% of local/regional journalists consider government ocials to have little
or no influence, 35% think they are ‘somewhat’ influential, and 3% ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ influential. The percentages for all journalists are, respectively, 74, 21, and
5. 58% of local/regional journalists consider the ‘military, police, and state security’ to have little or no influence, 29% think they are ‘somewhat’ influential, and 13%
‘very’ or ‘extremely’ influential. The percentages for all journalists are, respectively, 78, 24, and 8.
46REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
Trust is an important foundation of everyday life. We place
trust in our family, our friends, and our neighbours. Trust is also
extended to strangers on a regular basis. There are several
advantages to be gained from trusting others. For example,
Fukuyama (1995: 90) suggests that companies in high-trust
societies are more successful as they benefit from reduced
‘transaction’ costs, such as the costs of carrying out business
negotiations or resolving contract disputes. Coleman (1988:
102) extends the value of trust beyond the realm of companies
to other contexts such as the family and politics. Trust, then,
is a key component of building the social capital that marks
successful communities.
In our survey we assess interpersonal trust (how much trust
journalists have in other individuals in society) and institutional
trust (how much trust journalists have in institutions).
Measures of interpersonal trust assess in general terms the
extent to which society’s members trust each other. An oft-used
indicator is the ‘Rosenberg question’ (Rosenberg, 1956), which
was part of our survey: ‘Generally speaking, would you say that
most people can be trusted or that you need to be very careful
in dealing with people?’ This question has been used in many
cross-national surveys and the results show large dierences
between countries. There are manifold explanations for these
dierences, such as the extent of corruption in a society.
Institutional or political trust, also called systemic trust,
measures how people feel about political institutions and their
members. As Morrone et al. (2009: 16) say, ‘institutional trust
is essential for the stability of societies and the functioning of
democracy’. In our survey we assessed journalists’ levels of
trust in a wide range of institutions, including those that are
part of the wider political system, such as trade unions and the
police.
As with interpersonal trust, surveys show large dierences in
institutional trust across countries. There are, however, some
common patterns. Parliament is generally trusted more than
government, the judiciary is the most trusted of all institutions
(Morrone et al. 2009: 16), and trust in government has declined
in almost all industrialised societies over the years (Dalton,
2005).
7.1 INTERPERSONAL
TRUST
Interpersonal trust in the UK has been on the decline. The
proportion of those who are ‘trustful’ fell from 56% to 44%
between 1959 and 1990 (Kaase, 1999: 5), and in the 2005
World Values Survey only 30% of Britons felt that most people
could be trusted.
45
Levels of interpersonal trust vary not only over time but also
by country and community. Alesina and La Ferrara (2000: 16)
suggest that levels of interpersonal trust are determined by
personal characteristics. Trust is lower amongst those with
less income and education and those who are discriminated
against, such as minorities and women. Communities that are
racially diverse and have high levels of income inequality may
also be less trustful.
Our survey indicates that journalists in the UK may have a
higher level of trust than the general population, with 40%
agreeing that ‘most people can be trusted’ (see Figure 7.1).
This dierence may be a result of UK journalists’ personal
characteristics, such as their relatively high levels of education
and their ethnic homogeneity.
FIGURE 7.1: UK JOURNALISTS’ LEVEL OF
INTERPERSONAL TRUST, DECEMBER 2015
(n = 652).
MOST PEOPLE CAN BE TRUSTED
40%
ONE CANNOT BE TOO CAREFUL
60%
JOURNALISTS’ TRUST
IN INSTITUTIONS
JESSICA KUNERT AND NEIL THURMAN
45
See documentation for the UK in World Values Survey (2014).
46 47/
We might expect journalists in the UK to extend some of their
relatively high levels of interpersonal trust to institutions,
because, as Morrone et al. (2009: 23) say, ‘a high level
of interpersonal trust is a prerequisite for a good level of
institutional trust’. Our survey asked the degree to which
political, state, and non-state institutions are trusted by
journalists in the UK. We present the results in the next three
subsections.
7.2 TRUST IN POLITICAL
INSTITUTIONS AND
ACTORS
In this section we look at journalists’ trust in explicitly political
institutions and individuals: Parliament, government, political
parties, and politicians. Only a small proportion of journalists
say they have a ‘great deal’ of or ‘complete’ trust in political
institutions or politicians (see Figure 7.2a). However, trust in
political institutions is also low – perhaps even lower – amongst
the general population, so journalists, despite saying that one
of their profession’s key roles is holding power to account,
46
are not exceptional in the level of distrust with which they view
political institutions.
Looking at our results in more detail shows that journalists view
Parliament
47
with slightly less suspicion than they do political
parties, government, and politicians, with 30% having ‘little’ or
‘no’ trust in it, and 57% having some trust (see Figure 7.2a).
The government
48
fares worse than Parliament in our survey.
Only 8% of journalists put ‘complete’ or ‘a great deal’ of trust
in government, while almost half have ‘little’ or ‘no’ trust (see
Figure 7.2a). However, studies in other countries show that it is
common for governments to be trusted less than parliaments
(see Díez Medrano, 2016). Furthermore, trust in government is
not high among the wider population. As Figure 7.2b shows,
a randomly selected sample of UK inhabitants were no more,
and possibly less, trusting of government than our sample of
journalists.
49
‘Political parties’ and ‘Politicians in general’ are trusted even
less than government and Parliament in our survey, rated lower
by journalists than any other institution. Politicians fare slightly
better than political parties but, even so, 54% of journalists
have ‘no’ or ‘little’ trust in them (see Figure 7.2a). However, trust
in politicians is low across the board, and the UK’s general
population may be at least as untrusting of politicians as its
journalists are, and possibly more so (see Figure 7.2c).
Figure 7.2a: UK journalists’ trust in political institutions and actors, December 2015.
10%
12%
13%
7%
44%
45%
32%
23%
44%
39%
47%
57%
2%
8%
12%
Politicians in general (n = 672)
Political parties (n = 671)
Government (n = 670)
Parliament (n = 666)
No trust at all Little trust Some trust A great deal of trust Complete trust
Figure 7.2b: A comparison of the levels of trust/satisfaction in government as
e
xpressed by UK journalists and the general population.
17% 38% 16% 27% UK population (n = 2,216)*
0 to 1 - dissatisfied
2 to 4
5 - somewhat satisfied
6 to 8
9 to 10 - satisfied
!"#$%&'()*$%#+',-)"#&.,/)"$%0'1)2345367!
13% 32% 47% 8% Journalists (n = 670)
No trust at all
Little trust
Some trust
A great deal of trust
Complete trust
FIGURE 7.2a: UK JOURNALISTS’ TRUST IN POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND ACTORS, DECEMBER
2015.
FIGURE 7.2b: A COMPARISON OF THE LEVELS OF TRUST/SATISFACTION IN GOVERNMENT AS
EXPRESSED BY UK JOURNALISTS AND THE GENERAL POPULATION.
46
In our survey, holding power to account was the third most frequently cited role journalists defi ned for themselves (see Section 4.1).
47
Defi ned in our survey as ‘The House of Commons/Scottish Parliament/Welsh Assembly/Northern Ireland Assembly’.
48
Defi ned in our survey as ‘the Prime or First Minister, the Cabinet, and other ministers’.
49
The comparison with the European Social Survey (ESS) data is approximate because the question asked by the ESS was about ‘satisfaction’, whereas our survey
asked about ‘trust’. Because the ESS used an 11-point rating scale, we have aggregated their data into fi ve bands (as indicated in Figures 7.2b and 7.2c) in order to
allow rough comparison with our data.
* Source: European Social Survey (2012).
48
REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
Figure 7.3a: UK journalists’ trust in other state institutions, December 2015.
5%
4%
2%
14%
15%
7%
51%
55%
50%
28%
24%
36%
3%
5%
The military (n = 657)
The police (n = 670)
The judiciary/the courts (n = 671)
No trust at all Little trust Some trust A great deal of trust Complete trust
Figure 7.4: UK journalists’ trust in trade unions, religious leaders, and the news media,
D
ecember 2015.
3%
18%
8%
16%
27%
26%
60%
44%
53%
20%
10%
11%
The news media (n = 677)
Religious leaders (n = 662)
Trade unions (n = 666)
No trust at all Little trust Some trust A great deal of trust Complete trust
Figure 7.2c: A comparison of the levels of trust/satisfaction in politicians as
e
xpressed by UK journalists and the general population.
19% 42% 18% 20% UK population (n = 2,219)*
0 to 1 - dissatisfied 2 to 4 5 - somewhat satisfied 6 to 8 9 to 10 - satisfied
!"#$%&'()*$%#+',-)"#&.,/)"$%0'1)2345367!
10% 44% 44% Journalists (n = 672)
No trust at all
Little trust
Some trust
A great deal of trust
Complete trust
FIGURE 7.3a: UK JOURNALISTS’ TRUST IN OTHER STATE INSTITUTIONS, DECEMBER 2015.
FIGURE 7.4: UK JOURNALISTS’ TRUST IN TRADE UNIONS, RELIGIOUS LEADERS, AND THE
NEWS MEDIA, DECEMBER 2015.
FIGURE 7.2c: A COMPARISON OF THE LEVELS OF TRUST/SATISFACTION IN POLITICIANS AS
EXPRESSED BY UK JOURNALISTS AND THE GENERAL POPULATION.
7.3 TRUST IN OTHER
STATE INSTITUTIONS
Journalists have a relatively high level of trust in the judiciary
and the courts, the police, and the military, with less than a fi fth
having ‘little’ or ‘no’ trust. The judiciary and courts are trusted
the most, followed by the military and the police (see Figure
7.3a).
Although journalists have relatively high levels of trust in these
‘other’ state institutions – we will suggest some reasons why
later in this section – there is still some suspicion; for example,
19% of journalists have ‘little’ or ‘no’ trust in the police. There
is no space to go into detail about what the sources of that
suspicion might be. We will, however, mention that there have
been a number of recent examples where such institutions,
including the police, have attempted to mislead the media to
protect their own interests (see e.g. Davies, 2009).
7.4 TRUST IN NON-STATE
ACTORS
Finally, we look at journalists’ trust in non-state actors, namely
trade unions, religious leaders, and the news media itself. UK
journalists have lower levels of trust in religious leaders than
they do in Parliament, the police, the military, and the judiciary
and courts. Nearly half (45%) say they have ‘no’ or ‘little’ faith in
religious leaders (see Figure 7.4). Some of this distrust is likely
to be a result of scandals involving abuse by members of the
Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church (Laville and
Sherwood, 2015), and the Methodist Church (Methodist Church
of the United Kingdom, 2015). However, there have also been
signifi cant scandals involving the UK Parliament, the police, and
the military, also covered widely by the media, yet journalists’
trust in these institutions is not as low. Why not?
First, as we report in Section 1.3, UK journalists are less
religious, in general terms, than the UK population and
* Source: European Social Survey (2012).
48
49/JOURNALISTS’ TRUST IN INSTITUTIONS
less likely to be aliated with a formal faith. Therefore, in
addition to mistrust of religious leaders arising from abuses of
power they may have committed, journalists have relatively
low levels of trust in the views they espouse. Secondly,
Parliament, the police, and the military are important sources
of information for journalists. Our survey shows that nearly
a quarter of journalists think that ‘the military, police, and
state security’ are at least ‘somewhat influential’ to their work
(see Section 6). This is unsurprising given the PR activities of
these institutions and the extent of news coverage relating to
police investigations and to the armed forces. For example,
the Ministry of Defence has around 1,000 people working in
media/communications roles, although this figure ‘excludes
many military personnel involved in communications work’
(Rayment, 2007). UK police forces employ almost as many
such sta – 775 across 38 of the 46 police forces for which
information is available (Turvill, 2015a). With ‘law and order’
sources cited in 22% of UK news stories, and national
government sources cited as frequently (Lewis et al., 2008),
journalists have relationships with the police and the military
that involve them trusting those institutions to provide
information. That trust is evident in the results of our survey.
Trust in trade unions, while not as low as that in religious
leaders, is still lower than that in the police, military, the judiciary
and the courts, and Parliament. Over a third of journalists
have ‘little’ or ‘no’ trust in unions (see Figure 7.4 on previous
page). Part of the explanation could be that trade unions are
perceived as having less legitimacy than they used to. Just as
trust confers legitimacy, so legitimacy instils trust. Unions have
suered from falls in membership over the years, following
their weakening under the Thatcher government and the
retreat of highly unionised industries like coal and steel. In
2014, 6.4 million UK workers were members of a trade union,
a far cry from the peak of 13 million in 1979 (Department for
Business Innovation & Skills, 2015: 5). Journalists’ own union,
the National Union of Journalists, has been subject to some of
these dynamics, weakened by de-recognition in the 1980s.
Another explanation for journalists’ low levels of trust in trade
unions revolves, again, around journalists’ relationship with
their sources. Trade unionists are not an important source of
information for journalists. A study found that just 1.5% of news
stories in UK ‘quality’ newspapers and in radio and television
news reports used trade unionists as a source, and ‘where
trade union material was present’, say the authors, ‘it typically
provided an oppositional voice’ (Lewis et al., 2008).
Journalists are conflicted in their attitudes towards their own
profession, the news media. Nearly a fifth have ‘no’ or ‘little’ trust,
60% have some trust, and another fifth have ‘a great deal’ of or
‘complete’ trust (see Figure 7.4 on previous page). This span of
opinion may reflect the range of journalism in the UK, some parts
of which enjoy higher levels of trust than others. For example, a
YouGov survey in 2013 showed that while 61% of people trusted
BBC journalists to tell the truth ‘a great deal’ or ‘a fair amount’
that figure fell to 13% for journalists on tabloid newspapers
(YouGov, 2013).
In Section 8 we analyse UK journalists’ ethics, and report on
when they think it may be justified, for example, to pay people
for confidential information. Given the phone-hacking scandal
and subsequent Leveson Inquiry, it is perhaps unsurprising that
journalists view the institutions they work for with some of the
ambivalence they display towards other institutions.
7.5 CONCLUSIONS
Our survey indicates that journalists in the UK have higher
levels of interpersonal trust than the general population. This
finding works against the stereotype of the journalist as hard-
boiled cynical hack. It is in line, however, with our findings on
the personal characteristics and diversity of journalists in the
UK (see Section 1). They show that journalists are, as a group,
highly educated, socially homogeneous, and similarly paid,
50
characteristics that promote higher levels of interpersonal trust.
As was to be expected, UK journalists have very little trust in
political institutions and actors, with politicians and political
parties coming bottom of the list. Their trust in other state
institutions, including the police, is, however, considerably
higher. As with our results on interpersonal trust, the – albeit
imperfect – comparisons we have been able to make show that
journalists’ levels of institutional trust are no lower – and may,
indeed, be higher – than those of the general population. Part
of the reason for this may be their relatively privileged social
status. Another explanation is suggested by our finding that
journalists trust religious leaders and trade unions less than
the police, the military, and Parliament. Although journalists
consider holding power to account to be one of the three most
important roles they perform, they depend on institutions of
state power for information in a way they do not with religious
leaders or trade unions. As we have said, that dependency
requires a relationship, which, like any relationship, demands a
certain level of trust.
50
Compared to the income inequality in the general population as measured by the Labour Force Survey (ONS, 2015b).
50REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
ETHICS AND
STANDARDS
ALESSIO CORNIA AND NEIL THURMAN
The causes and e ects of the Leveson Inquiry have moved
ethical standards to the forefront of debates about British
journalism. In Section 5.4 we showed that, in the UK, more
journalists think ethical standards have strengthened than think
they have weakened over the last fi ve years. Our survey also
asked further, general, questions on ethics, as well as questions
about whether, on an important story, it is ever justifi ed to push
the boundaries of ethics and standards in these areas:
• sources: payments and pressure;
• using material without permission;
• misrepresentation and subterfuge;
• falsifi cation and verifi cation.
8.1 JOURNALISTS’
GENERAL VIEWS ON
ETHICS
The overwhelming majority of journalists in the UK (94%)
express agreement with the statement that they should ‘always
adhere to codes of professional ethics regardless of situation
and context’. At the same time, however, two-thirds also agree
that ‘what is ethical in journalism depends on the specifi c
situation’ (see Figure 8.1). These two fi ndings may appear
contradictory but, in fact, they are not.
Acknowledging that the specifi c situation defi nes what is
ethical or not does not mean that specifi c circumstances can
justify an infringement of codes of professional ethics. The
codes themselves recognise that specifi c circumstances
defi ne whether a given practice should be considered justifi ed.
For example, both the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice (IPSO,
2016), which defi nes professional standards for print and
online journalists and editors, and the Ofcom Broadcasting
Code (Ofcom, 2015), which regulates TV and radio services,
allow standards to be set aside in the public interest. Stories
in the public interest could include those that reveal criminal
behaviour, protect public safety, or disclose misleading claims
made by individuals or organisations. Most UK journalists,
then, seem to be aware of the contextual fl exibility in their
professional codes of practice.
Journalists were also asked to indicate whether they agreed
with the following statement: ‘What is ethical in journalism is
a matter of personal judgement.’ In this case, respondents
expressed mixed views: 50% of them disagreed, 39% agreed,
and 12% were undecided (see Figure 8.1). It is di cult to
explain this result, but it may be related to the di erent ways
Figure 8.1: UK journalists’ views on general statements about ethics, December 2015.
12%
21%
22%
14%
29%
21%
3%
8%
12%
22%
28%
45%
33%
26%
66%
21%
6%
9%
Journalists should always adhere to codes of
professional ethics, regardless of situation
and context (n = 694)
What is ethical in journalism depends on the
specific situation (n = 689)
What is ethical in journalism is a matter of
personal judgement (n = 691)
It is acceptable to set aside moral standards
if extraordinary circumstances require it
(n = 688)
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Undecided Somewhat agree Strongly agree
FIGURE 8.1: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON GENERAL STATEMENTS ABOUT ETHICS, DECEMBER
2015.
50
51/
in which the question can be interpreted. On the one hand,
the statement seems to suggest that journalists’ subjective
views defi ne which practices are appropriate or not. This
interpretation may have led respondents to disagree with
the statement, especially in relation to the previous question
about the importance of a more objective element – the
specifi c circumstances. On the other hand, it is possible that
some respondents interpreted the question in a way that
acknowledged the innate subjectivity of every evaluation:
the decision on whether specifi c circumstances can justify
a given practice necessarily implies a subjective evaluation
of the situation from the journalist’s side, and therefore what
is considered ethical or not depends on his or her personal
judgement. This more philosophical interpretation could have
led some respondents to agree with the statement.
Finally, journalists were asked to express whether they agreed
with the following statement: ‘It is acceptable to set aside
moral standards if extraordinary circumstances require it.’ This
question also addresses specifi c circumstances, although the
wording is stronger, with the use of the term ‘extraordinary’.
Here the focus is not on the defi nition of what is ethical in
journalism, but on the adherence to moral standards. While
ethics in journalism are defi ned in professional codes of
conduct, morality is more often associated with personal and
social values. The more mixed views expressed by journalists,
as well as the higher number of undecided respondents (22%),
refl ect the complexity and abstract nature of the statement (see
Figure 8.1 on previous page).
8.2 SOURCES: PAYMENTS
AND PRESSURE
The fi rst set of ethically questionable practices we asked
about in our survey related to sources. Exerting pressure on
unwilling informants to get a story is considered unacceptable
by 65% of UK journalists, while 35% think it is justifi ed on
occasion (see Figure 8.2). Clause 3 of the IPSO Editors’ Code
of Practice requires journalists not to ‘engage in intimidation,
harassment or persistent pursuit’. Specifi cally, they should
avoid ‘questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing
individuals once asked to desist’ (IPSO, 2016). A request to
desist is not, however, the only criterion journalists should take
into consideration when deciding whether to exert pressure
on unwilling informants. The Editors’ Codebook (Beales, 2014)
provides an example of a complaint that was upheld by IPSO’s
predecessor, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), where
no formal desist request was made but where the journalist’s
actions were considered to go against the spirit of the Code
and amount to ‘harassment’:
A couple whose daughter, aged 16, committed suicide
declined a weekly newspaper’s o er to publish a tribute,
saying they would be in touch if they changed their minds.
But the reporter, with deadline pressing, called four times
in a few days. The PCC said common sense should have
dictated that repeated calls in a short time to recently-
bereaved parents were inappropriate. The complaint was
upheld. (Beales, 2014: 42)
Our survey shows that a signifi cant proportion (35%) of
journalists consider that it is justifi ed, given an important story,
to exert pressure on unwilling informants. This is in line with
the codes of practice, and the exception they grant for stories
in the public interest (IPSO, 2016; Ofcom, 2015). A survey of
US journalists showed similar results, with 38% agreeing that,
on occasion, it can be justifi ed to badger unwilling informants
(Willnat and Weaver, 2014).
Journalists were then asked to express their views on
payments within the context of newsgathering activities.
Whereas accepting money from sources is considered
inexcusable by almost all journalists in the UK (96%), paying
people for confi dential information is considered justifi ed
on occasion by 51% (see Figure 8.2). This result di ers from
standards in the US where only 5% of journalists believe it
is justifi ed on occasion (Willnat and Weaver, 2014). However,
the UK professional codes clearly indicate that this is a
legal practice. The Editors’ Codebook, for example, says
that ‘payment for stories is legitimate in a free market and
it would be impossible – if not actually illegal under human
rights legislation – to disallow it’ (Beales, 2014: 10). The Code
prohibits payments only in specifi c circumstances; for example,
to criminals or their families or associates, ‘so that these people
are not e ectively glamorising, glorifying or profi ting from
crime’. However, there is, again, a public interest exception.
Figure 8.2: UK journalists’ views on paying/accepting money from sources and exerting
p
ressure on them, ‘given an important story’, December 2015.
35%
4%
51%
65%
96%
47%
Exert pressure on unwilling informants to get a
story (n = 662)
Accept money from sources (n = 678)
Pay people for confidential information (n = 663)
Always justified Justified on occasion Not approved under any circumstances
FIGURE 8.2: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON PAYING/ACCEPTING MONEY FROM SOURCES AND
EXERTING PRESSURE ON THEM, ‘GIVEN AN IMPORTANT STORY’, DECEMBER 2015.
52
REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
Figure 8.3: UK journalists’ views on using material without permission, ‘given an important
story’, December 2015.
8% 73%
46%
19%
53%
Confidential business or government
documents (n = 672)
Personal documents such as letters
and pictures (n = 669)
Always justified Justified on occasion Not approved under any circumstances
Figure 8.4: UK journalists’ views on using misrepresentation and subterfuge, ‘given an
important story’, December 2015.
4%
46%
71%
76%
54%
25%
22%
Claiming to be somebody else (n = 670)
Getting employed in a firm or organisation to
gain inside information (n = 670)
Using hidden microphones or cameras
(n = 670)
Always justified Justified on occasion Not approved under any circumstances
FIGURE 8.3: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON USING MATERIAL WITHOUT PERMISSION, ‘GIVEN
AN IMPORTANT STORY’, DECEMBER 2015.
FIGURE 8.4: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON USING MISREPRESENTATION AND SUBTERFUGE,
‘GIVEN AN IMPORTANT STORY’, DECEMBER 2015.
8.3 USING MATERIAL
WITHOUT PERMISSION
Our survey asked two questions about using material without
permission. Using confi dential business or government
documents without authorisation is largely considered
acceptable: 73% of UK journalists believe it is justifi ed ‘on
occasion’ and 8% think that it is ‘always justifi ed’ (see Figure
8.3). In this case UK journalists’ views di er considerably from
those of their colleagues in the US where only 58% thought
the use of unauthorised business or government documents
was justifi able (Willnat and Weaver, 2014). However, Willnat
and Weaver’s fi nding has to be seen in the context of the
polarisation of opinion around national security issues in the US
following the Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks cases. In 2002,
the percentage of US journalists who found justifi cation for the
use of o cial documents without authorisation was 78%, very
similar to our result.
While UK journalists consider it largely acceptable to use o cial
material without authorisation, the use of personal documents,
such as letters and pictures, without permission is a di erent
matter. Only 47% thought it was ever justifi ed (see Figure 8.3).
This di erence can, in part, be explained by the emphasis given
to individuals’ privacy in the professional codes. The IPSO
Editors’ Code of Practice, for example, says that ‘everyone is
entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home,
health and correspondence, including digital communications’
(IPSO, 2016). This entitlement to respect applies to information
and pictures published on social networking sites, whose
republication is not ‘inherently justifi able’ even if unprotected
by privacy settings (Beales, 2014: 31). However, again,
exceptions can be justifi ed in the public interest.
Although double the proportion of UK journalists say they
would never use personal documents without permission
as say they would never use o cial material in the same
circumstances, their ethical stance is still relatively liberal in this
area compared with some of their international colleagues. For
example, only 25% of US journalists believe it is ever justifi able
to use personal documents without permission (Willnat and
Weaver, 2014).
8.4 MISREPRESENTATION
AND SUBTERFUGE
Should a journalist pretend to be somebody else? Mazher
Mahmood is probably the best-known exponent of
misrepresentation in the context of UK journalism. His
personas, including ‘the fake sheikh’, have entrapped
celebrities, politicians, and members of the British royal family.
The News of the World, for which Mahmood worked for
several years, claimed his undercover investigations brought
several criminals to justice. However, his methods have also
been accused of breaking the law without any clear public
interest justifi cation (BBC News, 2006). Indeed, the relevant
professional codes of practice say that misrepresentation and
subterfuge ‘can generally be justifi ed only in the public interest
and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other
means’ (IPSO, 2016).
UK journalists expressed mixed views about whether claiming
to be somebody else is acceptable: 54% believe it is never
justifi ed and 46% think it is justifi ed on occasion (see Figure
8.4). US journalists are, again, more disapproving, with only
7% agreeing that misrepresentation is justifi able on occasion
(Willnat and Weaver, 2014).
52
53/ETHICS AND STANDARDS
While UK journalists have mixed views on misrepresentation,
other forms of subterfuge are accepted to a greater extent.
Over 70% consider getting employed in a fi rm or organisation
to gain inside information or using hidden microphones and
cameras justifi ed on occasion (see Figure 8.4 on previous
page). US journalists are, again, more conservative, with
only 25% believing that posing as a fake employee is ever
acceptable and 47% believing the same about the use of
hidden recording equipment (Willnat and Weaver, 2014).
8.5 FALSIFICATION AND
VERIFICATION
Our survey also asked about the falsifi cation of material and the
acceptability of publishing unverifi ed content. Three-quarters
of UK journalists think that publishing stories with unverifi ed
content is not justifi able under any circumstances (see Figure
8.5). However, given that the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice
gives no public interest exception to its guidance that ‘the
Press must take care not to publish inaccurate … information’,
it is, perhaps, surprising that a quarter of UK journalists believe
that publishing news with unverifi ed content is justifi ed on
occasion. In Section 3.4 we explore how journalists working
online have to produce or process a relatively high number of
stories and how the normalisation of such increased workloads,
as well as new online news formats such as live blogs, may be
contributing to a lowering in standards of verifi cation.
Almost all UK journalists (95%) disapprove of altering or
fabricating quotes
51
and a very high proportion, 88%, believe
the same about altering photographs (see Figure 8.5).
52
Our
last question on ethics and standards was about the use of
recreations or dramatisation of news by actors. This practice
is largely approved of by UK journalists: 68% believe it is
justifi able ‘on occasion’ and 6% ‘always’ (see Figure 8.5).
Although this practice can blur the boundaries between fact
and fi ction, it can also be an e ective way to illustrate a story
when original images are not available and is regularly used in
current a airs and long-form documentary journalism.
8.6 DIFFERENCES BY
RANK AND MEDIUM
Our analysis shows some variation in views on ethics among
journalists of di erent ranks and among journalists working in
di erent media. Broadcast journalists exhibit wider acceptance
of subterfuge, such as the use of hidden microphones/cameras,
getting employed in an organisation to gain inside information,
or claiming to be somebody else. They also consider it more
acceptable to use material without permission. Print journalists
are more likely to fi nd justifi cation for paying people for
confi dential information, publishing stories with unverifi ed
content, and exerting pressures on unwilling informants (see
Figure 8.6a).
Seniority also infl uences views on ethical standards. Rank and
fi le journalists show a greater level of acceptance of practices
at the ethical boundaries than junior or senior managers (see
Figure 8.6b).
53
This fi nding may refl ect the pressure rank and
fi le journalists feel to ‘deliver the story’. For example, Graham
Johnson, a former journalist at the News of the World –
before its demise one of the biggest-selling English-language
newspapers in the world – said:
You can’t get through the day on a tabloid newspaper if
you don’t lie, if you don’t deceive, if you’re not prepared to
use forms of blackmail or extortion or lean on people, you
know, make people’s lives a misery. You just have to deliver
the story on time and on budget, and if you didn’t then
you’d get told o . The News of the World culture was driven
by fear. (C. Jones, 2012)
Figure 8.5: UK journalists’ views on publishing unverified material, fabrication,
m
anipulation, and dramatisation, ‘given an important story’, December 2015.
6%
24%
4%
11%
68%
75%
95%
88%
26%
Publishing stories with unverified
content (n = 667)
Altering or fabricating quotes
from sources (n = 682)
Altering photographs (n = 677)
Using re-creation or dramatisations
of news by actors (n = 614)
Always justified Justified on occasion Not approved under any circumstances
FIGURE 8.5: UK JOURNALISTS’ VIEWS ON PUBLISHING UNVERIFIED MATERIAL, FABRICATION,
MANIPULATION, AND DRAMATISATION, ‘GIVEN AN IMPORTANT STORY’, DECEMBER 2015.
51
It is, however, acceptable to edit some quotes, e.g. from interview transcripts, for readability.
52
The IPSO Editors’ Code (IPSO, 2016) says that an image can be digitally enhanced, but that notice should be given if it has been altered signifi cantly.
53
The only excep on to this pa ern was in the publishing of stories with unverifi ed content, where a higher propor on of senior managers than rank and fi le journalists found
some jus fi ca on.
54
REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
FIGURE 8.6a: A COMPARISON OF THE PROPORTIONS OF UK PRINT & BROADCAST
JOURNALISTS WHO FEEL IT IS JUSTIFIED (‘ALWAYS’ OR ‘ON OCCASION’) TO PRESSURE OR
PAY SOURCES, USE PRIVATE DOCUMENTS WITHOUT PERMISSION, PUBLISH UNVERIFIED
CONTENT, OR ENGAGE IN FALSIFICATION AND SUBTERFUGE, DECEMBER 2015.
FIGURE 8.6b: A COMPARISON OF THE PROPORTIONS OF UK JOURNALISTS OF DIFFERENT
RANKS WHO FEEL IT IS JUSTIFIED (‘ALWAYS’ OR ‘ON OCCASION’) TO PRESSURE OR PAY
SOURCES, USE PRIVATE DOCUMENTS WITHOUT PERMISSION, PUBLISH UNVERIFIED
CONTENT, OR ENGAGE IN FALSIFICATION AND SUBTERFUGE, DECEMBER 2015.
29%
51%
89%
52%
53%
89%
97%
17%
33%
58%
79%
47%
43%
71%
73%
24%
35%
53%
81%
47%
46%
75%
79%
25%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Exert pressure on
unwilling
informants
Pay people for
confidential
information
Use business or
government
documents without
authorisation
Make use of
personal
documents
without permission
Claim to be
somebody else
Get employed in an
organisation to
gain inside
information
Use hidden
microphones or
cameras
Publish stories with
unverified content
Broadcast journalists (n = 68) Print journalists (n = 228) All journalists (n = 700)
Note: The figures for print and broadcast journalists only include those journalists who work exclusively in one or other of those media. Journalists working in print or broadcast
journalism and one or more other media were excluded.
Figure 8.6a: A comparison of the proportions of UK print & broadcast journalists who feel it
i
s justified (‘always’ or ‘on occasion’) to pressure or pay sources, use private documents
w
ithout permission, publish unverified content, or engage in falsification and subterfuge,
D
ecember 2015.
28%
48%
75%
41%
34%
64%
66%
33%
34%
52%
79%
46%
47%
73%
76%
18%
41%
58%
88%
54% 54%
85%
88%
27%
35%
53%
81%
47%
46%
75%
79%
25%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Exert pressure on
unwilling informants
Pay people for
confidential
information
Use business or
government
documents without
authorisation
Make use of
personal documents
without permission
Claim to be
somebody else
Get employed in an
organisation to gain
inside information
Use hidden
microphones or
cameras
Publish stories with
unverified content
Senior managers (n = 177) Junior managers (n = 266) Rank and file journalists (n = 255) All journalists (n = 700)
Figure 8.6b: A comparison of the proportions of UK journalists of different ranks who feel
i
t is justified (‘always’ or ‘on occasion’) to pressure or pay sources, use private documents
w
ithout permission, publish unverified content, or engage in falsification and subterfuge,
D
ecember 2015.
Note: The fi gures for print and broadcast journalists only include those journalists who work exclusively in one or other of those media. Journalists working in
print or broadcast journalism and one or more other media were excluded.
8.7 CONCLUSIONS
Our survey shows that UK journalists’ views on ethics closely
match the professional codes of conduct they work under. Of
the practices only permitted in the public interest, journalists
are most likely to fi nd justifi cation for the unauthorised
publication of o cial documents, the use of hidden recording
devices, and misrepresentation and recreations. Paying people
for confi dential information is also considered justifi ed on
occasion by the majority of UK journalists. However, despite
a close alignment between their views and those of their
professional bodies, and the fact that they tell us ethical
standards have strengthened in the last fi ve years, and despite
the fallout from the Leveson Inquiry, UK journalists remain,
in comparison with some of their international colleagues,
relatively willing to justify practices that, under normal
circumstances, their professional codes of ethics would
prohibit.
54
55/ETHICS AND STANDARDS
This report is based mainly on an online survey carried out in
December 2015. The survey had 700 responses from a sample
that is broadly representative of the total population of UK
journalists. In this section we lay out the methodology in detail,
describing the collaborative, international, and comparative
survey project – the Worlds of Journalism Study – that is the
source of this report’s questionnaire and overall approach,
and assessing the representativeness of our results via
comparisons with other surveys.
9.1 THE QUESTIONNAIRE
The questionnaire
54
used in this study was developed as part of
an international project, the Worlds of Journalism Study,
55
that
involves academics from around the world. Between 2012 and
2015, using the same core questions, researchers surveyed
journalists in scores of countries, gathering data on journalists’
diversity, employment conditions, and working routines, as well
as their opinions on:
• ethics and standards,
• the influences on their work,
• the trustworthiness of institutions such as the government
and trade unions,
• their role in society, and
• changes in journalism over time.
The collective nature of such a project resulted, inevitably,
in some compromises, including on which questions should
be asked. For example, although a question was included
on whether it is ever justified to pay people for confidential
information, there was no question about whether it is
acceptable to hack telephones – highly relevant in the UK
context given the phone-hacking scandal and subsequent
public inquiry (Leveson, 2012). However, the advantages of our
collective approach are significant, in particular the ability to
make cross-country comparisons. The full set of data from the
countries involved in the Worlds of Journalism Study was not
available in time to be used in this publication, which focuses
on the UK data. However, further publications are planned,
which will include comparisons between journalists in the UK
and their colleagues in up to 70 countries.
56
9.2 SAMPLING STRATEGY
In order to build our sample we first obtained a list of journalists’
names, email addresses, and professional aliations from
the Gorkana Media Database,
57
which is the largest available
database of UK journalists’ contact details (Gavin Smith,
personal communication, 19 January 2016). In the Gorkana
database, journalists are associated with particular ‘media
types’, for example, ‘National newspapers’. A total of 35,010
contact details were downloaded for UK journalists working
across all media types, with the exception of ‘Commercial
blogs’, ‘Developing blogs’, and ‘Individual blogs’. Journalists
working for ‘Mainstream blogs’ were included. However,
because some journalists were associated with more than one
media type, for example, ‘Radio’ and ‘Television’, or ‘National
newspapers’ and ‘Regional newspapers’, a deduplication
process was undertaken, which resulted in the removal of
5,684 duplicate entries. This left a final database of 29,326
journalists from which 30% were picked at random to receive
an invitation to complete the survey, which was hosted on the
Qualtrics online survey platform.
58
Journalists received an email invitation to participate on 7
December 2015. Two further reminders were sent by email, the
first on 13 December 2015 and the second on 26 December
2015. Participation in the survey was by invitation only and
participants could not complete the survey more than once.
The survey was closed at 10:55 (GMT) on 31 December 2015.
METHODOLOGY
NEIL THURMAN
54
A copy of the questionnaire used in the survey is available here: http://bit.ly/1nvaQxZ
55
www.worldsoournalism.org
56
Proposals for collaboration should be directed to Neil Thurman <neil.thurman@iw.lmu.de>
57
www.gorkana.com
58
www.qualtrics.com
56
A total of 1,292 surveys were started, and 715 were fully
completed. Only surveys that were fully completed were taken
forward to be used in the final analysis.
9.3 EXCLUSIONS
All the fully completed surveys were examined and the data
cleaned. For example, close attention was paid to the names of
the news organisations the journalists did most of their work for,
as well as their employment status. Respondents who worked
for media organisations that were not considered to have their
own news programme or news section were excluded, for
example all-music radio stations. We also excluded journalists
working for certain categories of publication, such as:
• consumer magazines produced by ‘contract’ publishers for
corporate clients, e.g. in-flight magazines for airlines;
• websites whose primary purpose is to sell something
(including information), but that carry some journalistic
content; and
• magazines published by companies owning retail premises,
e.g. department stores.
Although journalists working for such outlets often write stories
of a type that can be found in newspapers, we felt that these
publications were actually closer to public relations than to
journalism. A total of seven respondents were excluded for
these reasons. We also excluded two UK-based journalists who
reported exclusively for foreign news outlets (for example, a
continental European TV channel).
In order to be included in the study, journalists had to be
involved in the production or editing of journalistic content or
in editorial supervision or coordination. So, for example, it was
decided to classify press photographers as journalists but not
camera operators unless they independently made editorial
decisions. Respondents whose professional role did not fit
our nine predefined categories
59
were examined and those
whose self-reported occupation did not meet our criteria were
excluded. One respondent was excluded on the basis of their
occupation, an Art Director.
It was decided to include only journalists who earned at least
50% of their income from journalism. Therefore respondents
who said they worked in a voluntary capacity, were on
maternity or paternity leave, who were retired, or were working
unpaid for a start-up were excluded. In some cases – e.g.
freelance journalists involved in running their own blog or
small-scale publication – a judgement had to be made about
whether the journalist was likely to be earning a majority of
their income from journalism. We excluded some freelance
blogging journalists where there was no evidence that their
blog earned money, for example through advertising. A
total of five respondents were excluded on the basis of their
employment status.
9.4 SAMPLE SIZE
Ocial statistics on the number of journalists working in the UK
can be obtained from the Oce for National Statistics’ Labour
Force Survey (LFS) which has an ocial occupational definition
of ‘Journalists, newspaper and periodical editors’. Between
April and June 2015, the LFS estimated that there were 63,618
journalists working in the UK (ONS, 2015a). If we take this figure
as the total population of UK journalists, our survey’s sample
size (700) can be considered to be very robust by the standards
of social survey research, with a confidence interval of 3.68% at
a confidence level of 95%.
9.5 REPRESENTATIVENESS
Not all of the 63,618 journalists estimated by the LFS to be
working in the UK are listed in the database of journalists we
used to build our sample. Our subset of the Gorkana database
contained 29,326 journalists, of whom we picked 30% at
random. Of those approximately 8% completed the survey.
In order to assess the representativeness of our final sample
we have compared it with those used by the LFS and by the
Journalists at Work survey, published in 2012 by the National
Council for the Training of Journalists (NCTJ, 2012).
The size of the population of journalists in the UK –
approximately 64,000 – and the fact that, as the NCTJ writes,
there is ‘no central, all-inclusive list of journalists’ in the UK
(2012: 12), makes it unfeasible to build a truly representative
sample for any survey of UK journalists. The LFS is the
largest household survey in the UK, with a total sample size
of approximately 100,000 individuals per quarter. However, it
samples the whole labour force, with the result that its sample
of journalists (approximately 100 per quarter) is very small.
Consequently, the data on UK journalists from the LFS has
a high confidence interval (10) at a confidence level of 95%,
meaning it is rather unreliable as a single source. The NCTJ’s
sampling strategy favoured journalists who were members of
the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), those registered with
the NCTJ itself, members of the Society of Editors and the
Professional Publishers Association, readers (not necessarily all
journalists) of publications (like the Press Gazette) where links
to the survey were posted, and those working for particular
employers of journalists.
Our survey used a sample built from a database to which, one
of its representatives told us, ‘all journalists’ are added, but
which they are then allowed to ‘opt out’ of if they do not want to
be listed and, potentially, receive press releases from Gorkana’s
clients (Gavin Smith, personal communication, 13 January 2016).
As a result, it is theoretically possible that our sample may
under- or over-represent some types of journalist. For example:
older journalists who have built up a substantial contacts list
and do not want to receive unsolicited correspondence, or
freelance journalists who do not have the access to sources or
story leads that comes with regular employment in a newsroom
and see registration with Gorkana as a useful alternative source
59
The categories were: Editor-in-chief, Managing editor, Desk head or assignment editor, Department head, Senior editor, Producer, Reporter, News writer, and
Trainee.
56 57/METHODOLOGY
of information. Although some under- or over-representation
is a possibility, our sample, as is discussed below, did not
turn out to be biased against older journalists or to include
more journalists who were working freelance or for their own
companies.
In spite of the di ering and imperfect sampling strategies
of our survey and the NCTJ’s, our sample correlates well
with that used in the NCTJ survey in terms of the ethnicity of
respondents, their gender, and their employment status. It also
correlates well with the ONS’s sample in terms of gender and
education. Our sample is rather more educated than the NCTJ’s
sample (see Table 9.5a). This di erence is likely to be a result
both of the two surveys’ di erent sampling strategies and of
the fact that, in the three years following the NCTJ survey, new
entrants into journalism were more likely to have a degree.
Our survey shows that 98% of journalists who entered the
profession between 2013 and 2015 have at least a bachelor’s
degree. This compares with 85% of those who entered the
profession before 2013. Our sample, like that used by the NCTJ,
contains fewer freelance journalists than the LFS’s sample. The
reasons for this are explored in Section 2.1.
TABLE 9.5a: A COMPARISON OF THE
ETHNICITY, GENDER, EDUCATION, AND
EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF UK JOURNALISTS
SAMPLED IN THIS SURVEY AND IN SURVEYS
BY THE OFFICE FOR NATIONAL STATISTICS
(ONS, 2015b) AND THE NCTJ (2012).
Our sample correlates well with that used in the LFS in terms of
the proportion of respondents under 25 and over 40. However,
the LFS sample had more respondents in their thirties and
fewer aged between 25 and 29. Our sample correlates well
with that used in the NCTJ’s survey in terms of age, with only
a slight divergence visible in the upper age bands: our sample
had fewer respondents aged 60+ but more in their fi fties (see
Table 9.5b).
TABLE 9.5b: A COMPARISON OF THE AGE OF
UK JOURNALISTS SAMPLED IN THIS SURVEY
AND IN SURVEYS BY THE OFFICE FOR
NATIONAL STATISTICS (ONS, 2015b) AND
THE NCTJ (2012).
Table 9.5b: A comparison of the
a
ge of UK journalists sampled in
t
his survey and in surveys by the
O
ffice for National Statistics (ONS,
2
015b) and the NCTJ (2012).
ONS
(2015)
NCTJ
(2012)
This survey
(2015)
Under 25 6% 4%
25-29 3% 14%
30-39 33% 23%
40-49 25% 25%
50 and over 32% 34%
22-24 3% 4%
25-29 12% 14%
30-34 14% 13%
35-39 12% 11%
40-49 27% 25%
50-59 20% 27%
60+ 13% 8%
Note: Due to rounding, column totals may not add up to 100%.
Note: Due to rounding, column totals may not add up to 100%.
Looking at the media in which respondents work, we see that
our sample correlates well with that used by the NCTJ in the
magazine, TV, and radio sectors. Our sample did, however,
contain fewer newspaper journalists (44% worked in this sector,
against 56% in the NCTJ sample), and more who worked online:
52% against 26% in the NCTJ sample (see Table 9.5c). This
divergence is likely to be a result of the di ering sampling
strategies and the time lag between the surveys. The NCTJ’s
sampling strategy included targeting members of the National
Union of Journalists, an organisation that has acknowledged
that those working online are under-represented in its
membership and that those working in broadcasting are over-
represented (Rudin and Ibbotson, 2013: 2). In the three years
that separates the two surveys, there was an increase in the
number of journalists working online.
TABLE 9.5c: A COMPARISON OF THE MEDIA
WORKED IN BY UK JOURNALISTS SAMPLED
IN THIS SURVEY AND A SURVEY BY THE
NCTJ (2012).
Note: In both surveys, respondents were able to choose multiple answers
to the question about which media they worked in, which is why the
percentages do not add up to 100.
58
REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
Overall we are confi dent that our sampling strategy has
resulted in a sample that is broadly representative of the
general population of UK journalists. Compared with the LFS’s
sample, ours is weighted in favour of those in their mid to
late twenties, weighted against those in their thirties, and has
fewer freelance journalists. However, we do not feel that this
di erence changes the results signifi cantly. In many parts of
our survey freelance journalists expressed similar views to
journalists in regular employment, for example, in the amount
of editorial freedom they felt they had (see Section 3.3).
Furthermore, the small number of journalists surveyed by the
LFS makes their data rather unreliable.
Although our sample di ers a little from that used by the
NCTJ’s survey, in particular in terms of journalists’ highest
formal educational qualifi cation and the relative proportion
of journalists working in the online and newspaper sectors,
we would argue that these di erenc es are not an indication
of any fundamental fl aw in our sampling strategy but rather,
as has been discussed, the result of changes in journalism
that happened in the three years between the surveys and
di erences in the respective sampling strategies used.
58
59/METHODOLOGY
REFERENCES
ABC (2016) National Newspaper Cross Platform Circulation
Certificate January 2016 Daily Mail, ABC. Online subscription
database. http://www.abc.org.uk/Certificates/47854769.pdf
(accessed Feb. 2016).
Alesina, Alberto, and La Ferrara, Eliana (2000) The
Determinants of Trust. NBER Working Paper, 7621. http://
www.nber.org/papers/w7621.pdf (accessed Feb. 2016).
Alexa (2016) Top Sites in United States. http://www.alexa.com/
topsites/countries/US (accessed Feb. 2016).
Baker, Jonathan (2012) How to Get into the BBC as a
Journalist. http://bbc.in/1PjLYSo (accessed Jan. 2016).
Bar Standards Board (2014) Practising Barrister Statistics. www.
barstandardsboard.org.uk/media-centre/research-and-
statistics/statistics/practising-barrister-statistics (accessed
Jan. 2016).
BBC (2011) Everyone Has a Story: The BBC’s Diversity Strategy
2011–15. http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/diversity/pdf/Diversity_
strategy_110523.pdf#zoom=100 (accessed Mar. 2016).
BBC (2016) Mission and Values. http://www.bbc.co.uk/
aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whoweare/mission_and_values
(accessed Mar. 2016).
BBC News (2006) Reporter’s String of Scoops, 15 Jan. http://
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3690886.stm (accessed Feb. 2016).
BBC News (2015) Salaries Rise as Companies Hire
More Graduates, 9 Sept. http://www.bbc.com/news/
education-34186954 (accessed Mar. 2016).
Beales, Ian (2014) The Editors’ Codebook: The Handbook to
the Editors’ Code of Practice. http://www.editorscode.org.uk/
the_code_book.php (accessed Feb. 2016).
Benson, Rodney, and Hallin, Daniel (2007) How States,
Markets and Globalization Shape the News: The French
and the US National Press, 1965–97. European Journal of
Communication, 22(1): 27–48.
Blanchard, Jack (2015) Jeremy Corbyn Appoints Controversial
Left-Wing Journalist as his New Chief Spin Doctor. Daily
Mirror, 21 Oct. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-
corbyn-appoints-controversial-left-6672139 (accessed Feb.
2016).
Blumler, Jay, and Gurevitch, Michael (1981) Politicians and
the Press: An Essay on Role Relationship. In Dan D.
Nimmo and Keith R. Sanders (eds), Handbook of Political
Communication, 467–93. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Boczkowski, Pablo J. (2010) News at Work: Imitation in an Age
of Information Abundance. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Broersma, Marcel, and Graham, Todd (2013) Twitter as a News
Source: How Dutch and British Newspapers Used Tweets in
their News Coverage, 2007–2011. Journalism Practice, 7(4):
446–64.
Chadha, Kylani, and Wells, Rob (2016) Journalistic Responses
to Technological Innovation in Newsroom. Digital Journalism
(online first edition): 1–16.
Cherubini, Federica, and Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis (2016) Editorial
Analytics: How News Media are Developing and Using
Audience Data and Metrics. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the
Study of Journalism.
Coleman, James S. (1988) Social Capital in the Creation
of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94,
Supplement: Organizations and Institutions: Sociological and
Economic Approaches to the Analysis of Social Structure:
95–120.
Crouse, Timothy (2003) The Boys on the Bus. New York:
Random House Trade Paperbacks.
Dalton, Russell (2005) The Social Transformation of Trust
in Government. International Review of Sociology, 15(1):
133–54.
Davis, Aeron (2009) Journalist–Source Relations, Mediated
Reflexivity and the Politics of Politics. Journalism Studies,
10(2): 204–19.
Davies, Nick (2009) Can the Police and the Media Trust Each
Other? Guardian, 27 Apr. http://www.theguardian.com/
media/2009/apr/27/ipcc-police-g20-death-media (accessed
Feb. 2016).
Department for Business Innovation & Skills (2015) Trade Union
Membership 2014. Statistical Bulletin (June). https://www.
gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/431564/Trade_Union_Membership_Statistics_2014.
pdf (accessed Feb. 2016).
60
Díez Medrano, Jaime (2016) Confidence in the Government.
http://www.jdsurvey.net/jds/jdsurveyActualidad.
jsp?Idioma=I&SeccionTexto=0404 (accessed Feb. 2016).
Falmouth University (n.d.) Journalism and Creative Writing BA
(Hons). https://www.falmouth.ac.uk/journalism-creativewriting
(accessed Jan. 2016).
Finberg, Howard I., and Klinger, Lauren (2014) Core Skills for
the Future of Journalism. http://www.newsu.org/course_files/
CoreSkills_FutureofJournalism2014v5.pdf (accessed Feb.
2016).
Fox, Jon (2012) The Experience of East European Migrants in
the UK Suggests that there is Racism towards Newcomers
Regardless of Racial Dierence. EUROPP. European
Politics and Policy, 22 Sept. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/
europpblog/2012/09/22/rascism-migrants (accessed Mar.
2016).
FT.com (2016) History of the FT: An Interactive Timeline. http://
aboutus.ft.com/corporate-information/history (accessed Feb.
2016).
Fukuyama, Francis (1995) Social Capital and the Global
Economy. Foreign Aairs, 74(5): 89–103.
Gans, Herbert J. (1979) Deciding What’s News: A Study of CBS
Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek and Time.
New York: Pantheon Books.
GMC (2015) List of Registered Medical Practitioners – Statistics.
www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/register/search_stats.asp
(accessed Jan. 2016).
Goldsmiths (n.d.) MA/MSc in Digital Journalism. http://www.
gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-digital-journalism (accessed Jan. 2016).
Guardian (2010) Our Quest to Become the World’s Leading
Liberal Voice, 6 July. http://www.theguardian.com/
sustainability/strategy-worlds-leading-liberal-voice (accessed
Mar. 2016).
Hallin, Daniel, and Mancini, Paolo (2004) Comparing Media
Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Hanitzsch, Thomas, and Mellado, Claudia (2011) What Shapes
the News around the World? How Journalists in Eighteen
Countries Perceive Influences on their Work. International
Journal of Press/Politics, 16(3): 404–26.
Hanitzsch, Thomas, et al. (2010) Modeling Perceived Influences
on Journalism: Evidence from a Cross-National Survey of
Journalists. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly,
87(1): 5–22.
Hanusch, Folker (2013) Journalists in Times of Change:
Evidence from a New Survey of Australia’s Journalistic
Workforce. Australian Journalism Review, 35(1): 27–40.
Herman, Edward, and Chomsky, Noam (1994) Manufacturing
Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New
York: Pantheon.
Hermida, Alfred, and Thurman, Neil (2008) A Clash of
Cultures: The Integration of User-Generated Content within
Professional Journalistic Frameworks at British Newspaper
Websites. Journalism Practice, 2(3): 343–56.
IPSO (2016) The Editors’ Code of Practice. https://www.ipso.
co.uk/IPSO/cop.html (accessed Feb. 2016).
Jackson, Daniel, and Moloney, Kevin (2015) Inside Churnalism:
PR, Journalism and Power Relationships in Flux. Journalism
Studies. DOI:10.1080/1461670X.2015.1017597.
Jones, Cass (2012) Former News of the World Reporter Claims
Journalists Made up Stories. Guardian, 12 May. http://www.
theguardian.com/media/2012/may/12/news-of-the-world-
made-up-stories (accessed Feb. 2016).
Jones, Owen (2012) Why ‘Chavs’ were the Riots’ Scapegoats.
Independent, 1 May 2012. http://www.independent.co.uk/
voices/commentators/owen-jones-why-chavs-were-the-riots-
scapegoats-7697824.html (accessed Feb. 2016).
Jordan, William (2014) Voters: Britain IS a Christian Country (But
We’re Not Religious). https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/04/23/
voters-were-not-religious-britain-christian-countr (accessed
Jan. 2016).
Kaase, Max (1999) Interpersonal Trust, Political Trust and Non-
Institutionalised Political Participation in Western Europe.
West European Politics, 22(3): 1–21.
Karlsson, Michael, and Clerwall, Christer (2011) Patterns and
Origins in the Evolution of Multimedia on Broadsheet and
Tabloid News Sites: Swedish Online News 2005–2010.
Journalism Studies, 13(4): 550–65.
Kollewe, Julia (2015) First-Time Buyers Need to Earn £77,000
a Year to Live in London. Guardian, 4 May. http://www.
theguardian.com/business/2015/may/04/first-time-buyers-
need-to-earn-77000-a-year-to-live-in-london (accessed 25
February 2016).
Laville, Sandra, and Sherwood, Harriet (2015) Child Sex Abuse
Inquiry to Focus on Churches and Politicians. Guardian,
27 Nov. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/27/
child-sex-abuse-inquiry-to-focus-on-churches-and-politicians
(accessed Feb. 2016).
Leveson, Brian (2012) An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and
Ethics of the Press: Report. London: The Stationery Oce.
Levien, Meredith (2014) IAB Annual Leadership Meeting 2014:
Marketing 2020 – The Digital Agenda. Palm Desert, CA, 9
Jan. 2014. https://youtu.be/cwbUdJSQXEc (accessed Feb.
2016).
Lewis, Justin, Williams, Andrew, and Franklin, Bob (2008) A
Compromised Fourth Estate? UK News Journalism, Public
Relations and News Sources. Journalism Studies, 9(1): 1–20.
Lichtenberg, Judith (2000) In Defense of Objectivity Revisited.
In James Curran and Michael Gurevitch (eds), Mass Media
and Society, 238–54. London: Arnold.
Lugo-Ocando, Jairo (2007) A Tale of Donkeys, Swans and
Racism: London Tabloids, Scottish Independence and
Refugees. Communication and Social Change, 1(1): 22–37.
McLuhan, Marshall (1994) Understanding Media: The
Extensions of Man. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Marshall, Sarah (2013) Native Advertising: Separating Church
and State, 4 Nov. https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/native-
advertising-how-news-sites-separate-church-and-state/s2/
a554648 (accessed Mar. 2016).
Martinson, Jane (2016) BBC News Faces £80m Cuts over the
Next Four Years. Guardian, 29 Feb. http://www.theguardian.
com/media/2016/feb/29/bbc-news-cuts-news-channel
(accessed Mar. 2016).
60 61/REFERENCES
Methodist Church of the United Kingdom (2015) Courage,
Cost and Hope: The Report on the Past Cases Review.
2013–2015. http://www.methodist.org.uk/media/1683823/
past-cases-review-2013-2015-final.pdf (accessed Feb. 2016).
Morrone, Adolfo, Tontoranelli, Noemi, and Ranuzzi, Giulia
(2009) How Good is Trust? Measuring Trust and its Role for
the Progress of Societies. OECD Statistics Working Papers,
2009/03, Paris: OECD Publishing.
Napoli, Philip (2011) Audience Evolution: New Technologies
and the Transformation of Media Audiences. New York:
Columbia University Press.
NCTJ (2012) Journalists at Work. Saron Walden: National
Council for the Training of Journalists.
Newman, Nic (2015) Reuters Institute Digital News Report
2015. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
NUJ (2004) The ‘Wellbeing Initiative’: Freelance Journalists,
Health and Trade Union Support. http://media.gn.apc.org/
wellness/wbrprt09.pdf (accessed Feb. 2016).
NUJ (2011) NUJ Code of Conduct. https://www.nuj.org.uk/
about/nuj-code (accessed Feb. 2016).
NUJ (2016) Roll Call of Newspaper Closures and Job Losses.
https://www.nuj.org.uk/news/roll-call-of-newspaper-closures-
and-job-losses (accessed Feb. 2016).
Ofcom (2015) The Ofcom Broadcasting Code, July 2015. http://
stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/
broadcast-code (accessed Feb. 2016).
Olmstead, Kenneth, Mitchell, Amy, Holcomb, Jesse, and
Vogt, Nancy (2014) News Video on the Web: A Growing,
if Uncertain, Part of News. Pew Research Center. http://
www.journalism.org/2014/03/26/news-video-on-the-web
(accessed Feb. 2016).
ONS (Oce for National Statistics) (2015a) Labour Force
Survey Employment Status by Occupation, April–June
2015, 12 Aug. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-
force-survey-employment-status-by-occupation/april---june-
2015/2015-spreadsheet.xls (accessed Feb. 2016).
ONS (2015b) Quarterly Labour Force Survey, July–September
2015 [data collection]. UK Data Service, SN: 7842. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-7842-1 (accessed Feb. 2016).
PA (2016) Bursary: Working to Promote Media Diversity. https://
www.pressassociation.com/Careers/Bursary (accessed Mar.
2016).
Peston, Robert (2014) Robert Peston’s Speech Warns of Threat
to Journalism from Native Ads. Guardian, 6 June. http://
www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/06/robert-peston-
threat-journalism-native-ads-charles-wheeler-lecture-full-text
(accessed Jan. 2016).
Picard, Robert G. (2014) Twilight or New Dawn of Journalism?
Digital Journalism, 2(3): 273–83.
Ponsford, Dominic (2015) Journalists to be Given Personal
Online Audience Growth Targets After Job Cuts at Trinity
Mirror Midlands. Press Gazette, 9 June. http://www.
pressgazette.co.uk/journalists-be-given-personal-online-
audience-growth-targets-after-job-cuts-trinity-mirror-
midlands (accessed Jan. 2016).
Ponsford, Dominic (2016a) Guardian News and Media to Slash
£54m from Annual Budget to Curb Losses. Press Gazette,
25 Jan. 2016. http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-news-
and-media-slash-%C2%A353m-annual-budget-curb-losses
(accessed Jan. 2016).
Ponsford, Dominic (2016b) Marketing Fail: Buzzfeed Censured
by Advertising Standards Authority and Told to Change
Labelling of Advertorials. Press Gazette, 13 Jan. http://www.
pressgazette.co.uk/marketing-fail-buzzfeed-censured-
advertising-standards-authority-and-told-change-labelling
(accessed Jan. 2016).
Porlezza, Colin, Maier, Scott R., and Russ-Mohl, Stephan (2012)
News Accuracy in Switzerland and Italy. Journalism Practice,
6(4): 530–46.
Pritchard, Stephen (2016) The Readers’ Editor on … Handling
Comments Below the Line. Guardian, 31 Jan. http://www.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/31/readers-editor-
on-readers-comments-below-the-line (accessed Feb. 2016).
Rayment, Sean (2007) Missing: MoD’s Army of 1,000 Press
Ocers. Daily Telegraph, 22 July. http://www.telegraph.
co.uk/news/majornews/1558148/Missing-MoDs-army-of-
1000-press-ocers.html (accessed Feb. 2016).
Reid, Alastair (2015) Women Outnumber Men on UK Journalism
Degrees, 23 Jan. https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/
women-outnumber-men-on-uk-journalism-degrees/s2/
a563890 (accessed Feb. 2016).
Richmond, Shane (2009) Telegraph.co.uk: 15 Years of
Online News, 11 Nov. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
technology/6545788/Telegraph.co.uk-15-years-of-online-
news.html (accessed Feb. 2016).
Rosenberg, M. J. (1956) Cognitive Structure and Attitudinal
Aect. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53:
367–72.
Rudin, Richard, and Ibbotson, Trevor (2013) An Introduction to
Journalism. Abingdon: Focal Press.
Saltzis, Konstantinos, and Dickinson, Roger (2008) Inside
the Changing Newsroom: Journalists’ Responses to Media
Convergence. Aslib Proceedings, 60(3): 216–28.
Schudson, Michael, and Anderson, Chris (2009) Objectivity,
Professionalism, and Truth Seeking in Journalism. In
Karin Wahl-Jorgensen and Thomas Hanitzsch (eds), The
Handbook of Journalism Studies, 88–101. New York:
Routledge.
Sharman, David (2016) MPs Urge Government Intervention
to Stop ‘Destruction’ of Local Press, 29 Jan. http://www.
holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2016/news/mps-urge-government-
intervention-to-stop-destruction-of-local-press/ (accessed
Feb. 2016).
Sigal, Leon V. (1973) Reporters and Ocials: The Organization
and Politics of Newsmaking. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath &
Co.
Singer, Jane (2004) More than Ink-Stained Wretches:
The Resocialization of Print Journalists in Converged
Newsrooms. Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly, 81(4): 838–56.
62REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM / JOURNALISTS IN THE UK
Spyridou, Lia-Paschalia, and Veglis, Andreas (2016)
Convergence and the Changing Labor of Journalism:
Towards the ‘Super Journalist’ Paradigm. In Artur Lugmayr
and Cinzia Dal Zotto (eds), Media Convergence Handbook,
vol. 1, Journalism, Broadcasting, and Social Media Aspects
of Convergence. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 99–116.
Stevens, Jane (2001) Where are the New Storytellers? In R. De
Wolk (ed.), Introduction to Online Journalism. Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Tandoc, Edson C., Jr (2014) Journalism is Twerking? How Web
Analytics is Changing the Process of Gatekeeping. New
Media and Society, 16(4): 559–75.
Thurman, Neil (2007) The Globalization of Journalism Online: A
Transatlantic Study of News Websites and their International
Readers. Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism, 8(3):
285–307.
Thurman, Neil (2014) Newspaper Consumption in the Digital
Age: Measuring Multi-Channel Audience Attention and
Brand Popularity. Digital Journalism, 2(2): 156–78.
Thurman, Neil, and Lupton, Ben (2008) Convergence
Calls: Multimedia Storytelling at British News Websites.
Convergence, 14(4): 439–55.
Thurman, Neil, and Schapals, Karim (2016) Live Blogs,
Sources and Objectivity: The Contradictions of Real-Time
Online Reporting. In Bob Franklin and Scott Eldridge (eds),
Routledge Companion to Digital Journalism Studies.
London: Routledge.
Thurman, Neil, and Walters, Anna (2013) Live-Blogging –
Digital Journalism’s Pivotal Platform? A Case Study of
the Production, Consumption, and Form of Live Blogs
atGuardian.co.uk.Digital Journalism,1(1): 82–101.
Thurman, Neil, et al. (2016) Giving Computers a Nose for News:
Exploring the Limits of Story Detection and Verification.
Digital Journalism. DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2016.1149436.
Trinity Mirror (2006) Trinity Mirror Appoints Head of Multimedia
for Regionals Division. http://www.trinitymirror.com/
pressrelease/trinity-mirror-appoints-head-of-multimedia-for-
regionals-division/1277#sthash.k12QeLpo.dpuf (accessed
Feb. 2016).
Tuchman, Gaye (1978) Making News: A Study in the
Construction of Reality. New York: Free Press.
Tunstall, Jeremy (1971) Journalists at Work: Specialist
Correspondents: their News Organizations, News Sources,
and Competitor-Colleagues. London: Constable.
Turvill, William (2015a) UK Police Forces Spend More than
£36m a Year on PR and Communications. Press Gazette, 1
May. http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/uk-police-forces-spend-
more-%C2%A336m-year-pr-and-communications (accessed
Feb. 2016).
Turvill, William (2015b) ‘Five years ago I loved it, now I’m
quitting!’ Local Journalism Survey Reveals Pay, Security
and Clickbait Concerns. Press Gazette, 21 Sept. http://www.
pressgazette.co.uk/five-years-ago-i-loved-it-now-im-quitting-
survey-regional-journalists-reveals-concerns-over-pay
(accessed Feb. 2016).
Turvill, William (2015c) Journalism Survey 2015: B2B Journalists
Flag Up Concerns over Commercial Influence on Editorial.
Press Gazette, 3 Nov. http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/
journalism-survey-2015-b2b-journalists-flag-concerns-about-
commercial-pressure-influencing-coverage (accessed Jan.
2016).
Turvill, William (2016a) Online Journalists’ Survey: ‘Public will
soon live o attention-seeking, fact-free, gossipy clickbait’.
Press Gazette, 29 Jan. http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/
online-journalists-survey-public-who-will-soon-live-attention-
seeking-fact-free-gossipy-clickbait (accessed Jan. 2016).
Turvill, William (2016b) Johnston Press has Shed Half of its
Journalists since 2009 with More than 1,000 Jobs Gone.
Press Gazette, 11 Jan. http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/
johnston-press-has-shed-half-its-journalists-2009-more-
1000-jobs-gone (accessed Jan. 2016).
UCAS (2015) End of Cycle Report 2015. https://www.ucas.com/
sites/default/files/eoc-report-2015.pdf (accessed Jan. 2016).
University of Essex (2014) Former BBC News Editor to Lead
New Journalism Degree. http://www.essex.ac.uk/events/
event.aspx?e_id=6661 (accessed Jan. 2016).
Vero, Sarah (2014) What is the Living Wage as an Annual
Salary? http://www.livingwage.org.uk/what-living-wage-
annual-salary (accessed Feb. 2016).
Williams, Andrew, and Franklin, Bob (2007) Turning
around the Tanker: Implementing Trinity Mirror’s Online
Strategy. http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Media/
documents/2007/03/13/Cardi.Trinity.pdf (accessed Feb.
2016).
Williams, Kevin (2010) Get me a Murder a Day! A History of
Media and Communication in Britain. 2nd edn. London:
Bloomsbury.
Willnat, Lars, and Weaver, David H. (2014) The American
Journalist in the Digital Age: Key Findings. Bloomington, IN:
School of Journalism, Indiana University. http://news.indiana.
edu/releases/iu/2014/05/2013-american-journalist-key-
findings.pdf (accessed Feb. 2016).
WoJ (2013) Consolidated Data File. http://www.
worldsoournalism.org/download.htm (accessed Feb. 2016).
World Values Survey (2014) World Values Survey Wave 5
(2005–2008): Aggregated Documentation. http://www.
worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV5.jsp
(accessed Feb. 2016).
YouGov (2013) Q. How much do you trust the following
to tell the truth? http://d25d2506s94s.cloudfront.net/
cumulus_uploads/document/iggcymaqch/YG-Archives-Pol-
Trackers%20-%20Trust.pdf (accessed Feb. 2016).
Zell, Ethan, and Bernstein, Michael (2014) You May Think You’re
Right … Young Adults Are More Liberal Than They Realize.
Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(3): 326–33.
62 63/REFERENCES
Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism
Tel: +44 (0)1865 611080
e: [email protected]
w: reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk
PART OF THE WORLDS OF JOURNALISM STUDY
SUPPORTED BY