Just 10 years ago, the primary duties of reporters and producers at
local television news affiliates were to fill the newscasts with live
shots, packages, good writing, and plenty of video. But in today's
world of media convergence, TV news staffers are doing much more than
"just TV." They are producing news content for multiple media
outlets. In many cases, the companies they work for provide news to or
own more than one television station in a media market (so-called
Limited Marketing Agreements [LMAs] or Duopolies). Stations across the
country also are increasingly partnering with radio stations and
newspapers to cross-promote their product and share news content
(Lowrey, 2005). And, according to a recent study by RTNDA, virtually all
television stations are now providing news content for Web sites
(Papper, 2005).
There are conflicting views about what it means to practice
convergence. Experts, such as Andrew Nachison of the American Press
Institute's Media Center, define convergence as "the
strategic, operational, product and cultural union of print, audio,
video and interactive digital informational services and
organizations" (Lawson Borders, 2003, p. 92). Much to the chagrin
of critics, however, many media operations tout their convergence
activities when they are simply practicing cooperation (Gabettas, n.d.).
According to AI Tompkins of the Poynter Institute, few media companies
are truly converged in the sense that they actually share news content
(Tompkins, 2001).
In recent years, scholars have examined various concepts of
convergence from both print and broadcast perspectives. Most of the
research, however, focuses the opinions of media managers--surveying
news directors, general managers, and newspaper editors (Dailey, Demo,
& Spillman, 2005; Duhe, Mortimer, & Chow, 2004; Kraeplin &
Criado, 2005; Tanner & Duhe, 2005) or the workplace realities of
print journalists (Kraeplin & Criado, 2005, 2006). To date, no
published empirical studies have examined how convergence affects local
television news workers whose job it is to write, report, and produce
news content on a daily basis.
To fill that void, this study's authors surveyed reporters and
producers across the country about convergent news practices in their
newsrooms. Researchers chose to study staffers in small and medium TV
markets because research shows news workers in these markets are more
likely than those in larger markets to contribute to Web-based and other
convergent activities (Papper, 2005). According to Papper, 20% of news
staffers in larger markets are required to provide content for their
station's Web site--this percentage more than doubles for staffers
in smaller markets.
This study gives communications scholars a glimpse of convergence
practices inside TV stations at a time when news staffs are shrinking
and demands on news workers are increasing. The survey explored the
specific activities news workers are tasked with as well as the
perceived impact of convergence on their jobs and, ultimately, on the
content they produce. The perceptions of these news workers were then
compared to those of news managers (surveyed in previous research).
Findings show significant differences in what these two groups think.
The research demonstrates that how well convergence works depends
on whom you ask. Conflicting views from the newsroom are discussed in
terms of the challenges that multimedia content production poses in the
modern age of ownership consolidation and convergence. With TV news
viewership in steady decline, and only 33% of Americans stating they
believe local TV news is reliable and accurate (Project for Excellence
in Journalism, 2006), it is critical that news workers and managers
grapple with these complicated issues and determine how best to provide
quality news content (and enhance journalistic performance) in
today's evolving media environment.
Literature Review
Because there are differing opinions about what convergence means,
it can be difficult to determine to what extent it is being practiced in
television newsrooms across America today. According to two recent
studies, between 80 and 90% of local TV stations practice some form of
convergence (Duhe et al., 2004; Tanner & Duhe, 2005). Another finds
more than 96% of local TV stations produce news content for the Web
(Papper, 2005), a singular practice that many news managers define as
convergence.
Defining Convergence
Does producing content for the Internet equal convergence? Some
academicians and media professionals say yes, taking a broad view. The
American Press Institute, for example, defines a convergent news
relationship as a "partnership" or "collaboration"
between print, broadcast, and online news outlets (U.S. Convergence
Tracker, 2006). Pavlik and McIntosh's (2004) perspective is broader
still, describing convergence in the digital environment as the melding
of the media, computing, and telecommunications. An earlier, and more
narrow, definition states that convergence occurs only when print,
online, and broadcast media merge into a single news operation (Giner,
2001; Zollman, 2001).
In recent years, many scholars have studied convergence to better
understand and explicate the phenomenon. Much of this research relies on
the opinions and perspectives of news managers. Duhe et al. (2004), for
example, surveyed news directors and general managers from 170 local
television stations in the United States. They found the majority of
respondents believe convergence means sharing content within their own
organization (such as Web sites), sharing content with other
organizations, sharing staff, and promoting other media. They were less
likely to define convergence in terms of integrated newsrooms or
cross-integrated editorial systems. Generally, the authors discovered
that television news managers defined convergence in terms that mirrored
the way their station already practiced it (p. 81).
This same survey gauged the opinions of news managers about the
skills required for news workers to succeed in a converged media
environment. To be hired today (and be successful in the future), news
directors agreed that reporters needed, first and foremost, the ability
to write broadcast copy and use computers--including the Internet,
e-mail, and word processing programs. After that, and in order of
importance, they needed the ability to: (1) Adapt news copy for use by
multiple media; (2) Shoot and edit video; (3) Work in an integrated
media technology environment; (4) Adapt visual news content for multiple
media; (5) Write for print; (6) Shoot still photographs; (7) Design
graphics; and finally, (8) Design Web sites (pp. 96-97). Although news
managers indicated they need employees capable of doing this kind of
work, 67% of respondents said their stations provided no training
support to help employees develop the required skills (p. 97).
In light of such findings, it is not surprising, perhaps, that
other researchers have turned their scholarly attentions to journalism
education. In trade-related fields such as journalism, teachers and
institutions of higher learning commonly assess industry standards in
order to make curricular changes and train students to meet the demands
of employers (Hansen, 2005). In today's multimedia world, studying
how best to teach convergence journalism is no exception.
Examining curricular concerns in the age of convergence has gained
considerable cachet in the academy. As is the case with industry
research, many studies published in recent years employ survey design
(Kraeplin & Criado, 2005; Lowrey, Daniels, & Becker, 2005;
Pavlik, Morgan, & Henderson, 2001; Tanner & Duhe, 2005). Typical
of such research is a 2005 study by Kraeplin and Criado. The authors
surveyed newspaper managers, television managers, and journalism
teachers to find out what they thought about convergence training at the
collegiate level. The researchers found that industry executives and
educators share many similar views about which specific skills should be
taught--from basic writing and reporting skills, to knowledge of media
law and ethics, to Internet researching skills.
News Routines and Today's Journalists
Despite all this research into convergence practices, skill sets,
and the future of journalism education, very few researchers have
studied today's working journalists--to assess the ways in which
convergence is having an impact on the jobs they do or to ask their
opinions about this multimedia trend. Some media experts believe, with
the proper training, news workers will adjust to their new duties with
little difficulty (Tompkins, 2001). Others are concerned that
convergence simply puts too many additional pressures on already
overworked journalists. Stone, for example, thinks that "while some
multimedia journalists can handle a variety of tasks efficiently and
professionally, most will only deliver mediocre journalism" (2002,
p. 3). At present, little scientific evidence exists to support either
view.
Researchers stand to gain substantial insights about convergence
(and other critical issues and concerns in journalism) by examining news
workers' daily routines. In fact, there exists a significant body
of research to demonstrate the many ways in which daily practices in
America's newsrooms have an impact on news content. Through such
studies it has been learned, for example, how news content is affected
by entrenched social structures (Tuchman, 1978), daily deadlines (Shook,
Lattimore, & Redmond, 1996), and resource allocation (Gant &
Dimmick, 2000; McManus, 1990, 1994). To better understand workers'
decisions, perceptions, and their role in the newsroom, Shoemaker and
Reese (1996) urged researchers to examine the routines that go with news
jobs.
To date, several scholars have examined convergence in relation to
news routines and practices. Commonly, however, their studies have
focused on individual cases in trend-setting multimedia operations
(Huang, Rademakers, Fayemiwo, & Dunlap, 2004; Lawson-Borders, 2003;
Singer, 2004). For example, through in-depth interviews and participant
observation in three, high profile convergent newsrooms, Lawson-Borders
unveiled several ways in which convergence and convergent technologies
have had a profound effect on media content and newsroom culture. She
describes that impact in extremely broad terms, such as
"communication," "commitment," and
"competition." Her observations do not describe the daily,
lived experience (or grounded reality) of news workers in these
organizations--the specific struggles or challenges they face. Although
more detailed analyses exist (e.g., Singer), case studies like these,
while insightful and useful, do not provide systematic, empirical
evidence about convergence that can be generalized to the larger
population of newsrooms currently practicing convergence nationwide.
This study seeks to change that.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Without a doubt, pressure is growing on news workers to provide
content to multiple media outlets--pressure that builds every day as
media cross-ownership and consolidation expand across the country. Media
organizations and news consumers are demanding information be made
available through multiple media platforms (Brown, 2005). To respond to
those demands and succeed in their jobs, news workers must now craft
content for their primary news outlet (for example, a television
newscast) and produce additional versions of their stories for other
media outlets, including the Internet and local radio. But in which
specific ways and to what extent are such responsibilities having an
impact on the jobs of today's local television journalists? The
impact of convergence on news workers' daily routines and job
perceptions is the focus of this study. Specifically, the following
research questions were developed for the analysis:
[RQ.sub.1]: How do convergence-related tasks affect reporters'
and producers' general news routines?
[RQ.sub.2]: How does media convergence affect reporters' and
producers' perceptions of their jobs?
Previous research suggests market size might impact convergence
activities. As noted earlier, Papper (2005) found top-50 television
markets are more likely to dedicate staff to convergent content
production. It could be assumed that news workers in larger media
markets will feel more positive about convergence because they
personally are required to devote less time to convergence-related
tasks. Therefore, the authors posed the following hypothesis:
[H.sub.1]: As market size increases, reporters' and
producers' perceptions of media convergence become more positive.
Finally, the authors were curious to find out how news
workers' views about convergence compare to the opinions of news
directors regarding the problems (or challenges) convergence poses in
the newsroom. Therefore, one additional research question was posed:
[RQ.sub.3]: How do news workers' opinions about convergence
compare to the opinions of news directors (as cited in previous
research)?
Method
To answer these questions, researchers conducted a nationwide
survey of local television news reporters and producers. Because no
sample frame exists for local television news workers, one was
constructed for the study. This was a lengthy, three-step process. It
took more than 6 months to develop the final sample frame and achieve an
acceptable response rate.
The process began with a stratified random sample of small and
medium television markets. The authors excluded top-50 media markets
from the analysis because research shows news workers in these markets
are less likely to personally perform convergence duties (Papper, 2005).
Remaining media markets were divided into three subgroups based on
Nielsen-defined DMAs: 51-100, 101-150, and 151-210. Twenty markets from
each stratum were randomly selected. Then, using a recent edition of the
NATPE Guide to North American Media (NAPTE Guide to North American
Media, 2004), NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX affiliates within each market were
identified. Only network affiliates were included because these stations
are more likely to produce local news than are nonaffiliated stations.
Calls were made to each television station to procure a list of
reporters and producers who worked in the newsroom on weekdays,
contacting 238 television stations in 60 media markets across the United
States. Of those, 185 were found to produce television newscasts. The
names of 1618 producers and reporters were obtained and included in the
original sample frame. Researchers mailed letters to each person
requesting his or her participation in a Web-based survey. Postcard
reminders were sent out 2 weeks later.
The initial response rate was lower than anticipated. A review of
the data showed zero responses from workers in 14 different media
markets. Authors theorized this might be because of the possibility that
no convergent activities were taking place in these markets (so workers
chose not to answer survey requests). Calls were made directly to the
assignments desk at stations in these markets to determine whether that
was, in fact, the case. If no convergence was taking place, names of
workers from those stations were removed from the original list. If
convergence was taking place, researchers asked the stations'
assignments editor (or in some cases, a news manager) to contact all
reporters and producers and remind them about the survey deadline. The
revised sample frame consisted of 1492 names.
Ultimately, 302 respondents participated in the study--a 20%
response rate. This rate falls at the higher end of the 1-30% rates
commonly achieved through Internet surveys in mass communication
research (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006, p. 205). Authors address the
response rate, issues regarding the sample's representativeness and
generalizeability, and the advantages/disadvantages of Web-based surveys
in greater detail in the Discussion section.
Measures
After logging onto the survey Web site, respondents were first
given a definition of convergence and asked whether the station they
worked for was involved in any convergent activities. For this study,
convergence was broadly defined as "any kind of news partnership,
alliance and/or collaboration with print, broadcast (TV or radio) or
online news outlets. This includes your station's Web site."
If their station was not involved in any exchange of media
content--meaning they, personally, did not participate in any convergent
activity--they were automatically "skipped" to the end of the
survey instrument to answer questions about themselves and the stations
they worked for. If respondents' stations were involved in any kind
of convergent activity, they continued on with the survey.
Although previous studies have assessed the opinions of news
managers and journalism professors about the subject of convergence,
this survey measures the opinions of reporters and producers. As such,
it borrows from and adds to the work of previous researchers. Using some
elements of Papper's 2005 study and a list of convergent-related
tasks employed by Tanner and Duhe, respondents made note of specific
convergent activities that directly affected their daily news routines.
In order to directly compare the responses of news workers with news
managers, respondents were also asked to rate their station's
overall experience with convergence.
Additionally, a battery of questions was included to ascertain how
convergent activities affect news workers' own personal work habits
as well as their perceptions about the habits of their peers.
Researchers asked, for example, how much time they devoted to convergent
activities per day, which specific challenges they faced in producing
convergent content, how they would rate their personal experiences with
media convergence, and whether they believed convergence activities
interfered with the quality of their local television news content. To
clarify, the researchers only measured perceptions about the impact of
convergence on quality versus measuring the actual quality of content.
Finally, respondents provided pertinent station and demographic
information. They were asked to identify their station's affiliate
status (ABC, CBS, etc.), market size, how many hours of local news
programming their station typically broadcast each weekday, and details
about station ownership (such as whether their station was locally or
group-owned and whether the station was part of an LMA or a Duopoly).
Respondents were also asked to list their job title, gender, age,
race/ethnicity, and category of income.
Data Analysis
Online survey responses were first funneled directly into a
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. They were later uploaded into and analyzed
using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive
statistics were generated and chi-square analyses conducted on all
categorical-level data.
Results
Participating in the survey were 302 reporters and producers.
Almost all respondents (97%) indicated their station practiced some form
of convergence. Because this study deals specifically with news staffers
who do participate in convergence, the 3% of respondents not practicing
convergence (N = 10) were eliminated from the analysis.
Descriptive Data
Forty-five percent of survey respondents worked in Nielson-defined
DMAs sized 51-100; 24% were from markets 101-150 and 31% from 151-201.
All of the stations produced news but the amount of news varied
dramatically, ranging from 1/2 hour to 8 hours of local news programming
per day. The average newsroom staff size was 30. The majority of
respondents were reporters or anchor/reporters (60.6%). One quarter
(24.1%) were producers or anchor/producers. Remaining respondents (15%)
had "other" job titles, such as reporter/meteorologist or
sports anchor/reporter.
Nearly 7 of 10 news workers (68%) said they now personally perform
convergence-related tasks as part of their assigned duties. Most
commonly, they produce content for their station's online product
(61%). Less than one-quarter of respondents said they worked with
another television station (21.6%) or radio station (19.5%). Fewer still
worked on newspapers (7.5%) or magazines (.07%).
Clearly, when it comes to convergence, the Internet is the dominant
medium with which local television reporters and producers are
involved--100% of respondents (N = 292) said their station now had a Web
site. More than half (55.1%) indicated their stations had dedicated
staff to their online convergence projects; 44.4% said no staff had been
added. The rest were not sure.
Regarding the specific kind of work they do for their
stations' Web sites, some of the most common tasks included writing
summary stories (49.3%), physically posting content (47.9%), conducting
question & answer sessions with viewers (32.5%), and providing
previously unaired video and sound bites for the Web (21.6%). Relatively
few news workers said they provided Internet links through which viewers
can find more information (15.4%), provided streaming video of stories
(12.3%), posted still pictures (4.5%), created blogs (2.7%), or provided
additional story facts or copy (2.4%). Not a single reporter or producer
said he or she produced Internet-only stories.
Research Questions & Hypothesis
Research Question 1 asked: How do convergence-related tasks affect
reporters" and producers' general news routines? Of those news
workers who report personally participating in convergence activities,
(1) almost three-quarters (72.1%) agreed or strongly agreed their
workload was increasing because of it. Three-quarters (75.4%) indicated
their coworkers' workload was also increasing. When specifically
asked how much time they spend on these tasks, most said they dedicated
less than 30 minutes per day to convergence activities. As shown in
Table 1, however, nearly 14% of news workers said convergence work took
more than an hour each day.
Post hoc analysis found no significant correlation between market
size and the amount of time employees spent on convergence work
([X.sup.2] = 6.96, df= 4, p = .14).
Research Question 2 asked: How does media convergence affect
reporters' and producers' perceptions of their job? Much of
what respondents had to say about their own work was generally positive.
Among those doing convergent work, almost half (47.8%) agreed or
strongly agreed that they "enjoyed working in other media." Of
the other half, 36% were neutral on the subject and 16.3% said they did
not enjoy it.
Although almost half of respondents reported that they personally
enjoyed working with other media outlets, they could not say the same
for their peers. When asked whether their coworkers enjoyed convergence
work, only about one-quarter answered in the affirmative (25.4%). Nearly
one-third (30.3%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that their peers
enjoyed the work. Post hoc analysis shows news workers were
significantly more likely to think their peers disliked convergence work
compared to themselves, although the association was relatively weak
([X.sup.2] = 9.6, df= 1, p < .05; Cramer's V = .136). (2)
Regarding the impact of convergence on news quality, one-quarter of news
workers agreed or strongly agreed that the quality of their own work
(24.9%), as well as the work of their peers (24.2%), was suffering as a
result of growing multimedia duties.
Because previous research shows stations in top-50 markets are more
likely to dedicate staff to convergent content production, it was
hypothesized that market size would affect the perceptions news workers
have about convergence. Specifically, the authors expected to find: As
market size increases, reporters' and producers' perceptions
of media convergence become more positive. Results, although
statistically significant, were in the opposite direction of what was
expected. As Table 2 shows, reporters and producers in markets 51-100
were significantly more likely than their peers in smaller markets to
have negative perceptions about certain aspects of media convergence,
including feelings that: (1) Their peers' workload was increasing;
(2) Multimedia activities were negatively affecting the quality of their
peers' work; and (3) Their bosses were putting increasing pressure
on them to provide convergence content to other media outlets.
The Cramer's V statistic suggests the strongest relationship
in Table 2 is between the variables "market size" and
"peers' workload increasing." The strength of association
between the other two variables is relatively weaker, but the
relationship is still statistically significant.
Despite these negative perceptions, the majority of reporters and
producers (60.8%) perceived their television station's overall
experience with convergence to be positive or very positive. No
significant differences were found on this variable when market size was
analyzed. Less than 10% said their station's experience had been
negative (7.1%). When it came to their own personal experience with
convergence, however, figures were slightly lower. Only 55.6% of news
workers say they personally had a "positive" or "very
positive" experience with convergence; 36.4% were neutral and
nearly 8% (7.8%) said their personal experience was "negative"
or "very negative."
Finally, in Research Question 3, the authors wondered: How do news
workers" opinions about convergence compare to the opinions of news
directors? To compare the two groups, national survey data was culled
from Duhe et al.'s 2004 study of news directors and general
managers in the United States. (3) Both the current study and theirs
asked respondents to rate their stations' overall experience with
convergence. As seen in Table 3, news workers were significantly less
likely than their bosses to have a positive opinion about convergence:
(4, 5)
As reflected in the Cramer's V statistic, the variables are
moderately associated. Compared to their employees, news managers were
far more pleased with their stations' experience with convergence.
Not a single news manager reported having a negative experience.
Digging more deeply, significant differences were also discovered
between the two groups regarding specific problems convergence might
pose in the newsroom. However, before addressing the specific findings,
a brief description of this method of analysis is called for. In both
studies, researchers asked respondents to remark about a list of
potential problems. The questions, however, were asked somewhat
differently. Duhe' et al. asked news managers to indicate (by
checking or not checking a box) whether they felt a specific issue posed
a problem in their newsroom--basically a "yes" or
"no" response. In this survey, respondents were given the same
list but were asked to gauge (on a 5-point Likert scale) the extent to
which the problem posed a challenge for them in their daily work
routine--ranging from "no challenge" to "very
challenging." To compare the two studies, slight recoding was
necessary. If the news worker said the issue was "no
challenge" or "almost no challenge," the answer was
recoded as "no." If respondent said the issue was
"somewhat of a challenge," "challenging," or
"very challenging," the response was recoded as
"yes."
As Table 4 indicates, news managers and news workers had similar
views about many of convergence's challenges. For example, the
majority of managers and workers believed the pressure to increase
content production was a challenge. The two groups also shared concerns
about the lack of training, competition with partnering media (such as
notifying each other of breaking news stories), and "losing their
niche" (as broadcast television news providers). This analysis
finds, however, news managers and news workers had significantly
different views about the remaining three issues.
Reporters and producers were significantly more likely than news
directors and general managers to believe decreasing quality,
technological conflicts (such as computer software being incompatible
for different media), and differing values or expectations when
producing content for various media (such as print vs. broadcast
culture) were at least somewhat a challenge in today's converged
television newsrooms. The strength of association on these measures is
somewhat weak regarding product quality and technology but moderate
regarding differing values.
Discussion
This study of medium and small market local TV news producers and
reporters is the first of its kind. The random sample survey describes
some of the ways in which convergence journalism affects news workers
across America and the content they produce. Compared to previous
research involving news managers, several results are notable.
Perspectives on Convergence
Differing opinions between managers and workers regarding the
impact of convergence on the newsroom are key findings of this study.
Compared to news directors and general managers, reporters and producers
are significantly more likely to feel that: (1) Convergence negatively
impacts the quality of the news; (2) Technological hurdles hamper their
efforts to produce convergent content; and (3) The values they hold
about television news conflict with efforts to produce content for other
media outlets. Many news workers believe these issues pose substantial
challenges in their daily news routines. News workers are also
significantly less likely than their bosses to say their stations'
overall experience with convergence has been a good one.
Workload and Quality. Although the majority of news workers said
their stations' forays into convergence have been positive, they
did not characterize their own personal experiences in quite the same
way. Less than half said they personally enjoyed convergence work and
only one-quarter thought their coworkers enjoyed it. Even though the
majority of respondents spent, on average, less than 30 minutes per day
producing convergence content, one-quarter of all news workers believed
it interfered with the quality of their primary work. They also believed
the work of their peers was suffering. As one respondent wrote, "We
spend too much time serving other masters. This reduces the quality and
comprehensiveness of our own reporting." According to one reporter:
"Convergence places a lot more responsibility on my shoulders. I
have far more work to do here than if my station did not practice
convergence." Yet another worker believed convergence "makes
it difficult to make deadlines and our staff is spread very thin."
Results demonstrate that a fair amount of discontent exists in the
newsroom regarding convergence work. It is not surprising that news
workers who spend the least amount of time on convergence work are the
ones who are least bothered by (or concerned about) it. Compared to
those who spend more than 30 minutes a day on convergence content,
reporters and producers who spend less than 30 minutes per day are
significantly less likely to believe that their multimedia duties
interfere with quality of content that their station produces ([X.sup.2]
= 15.75, df = 2, p < .001, V =.283), the quality of work that they
personally produce ([X.sup.2] = 12.13, df = 2, p < .05; V = .283),
and the quality of work that their coworkers produce ([X.sup.2] = 12.45,
df = 2, p < .01, V= .30). They are also significantly less likely to
believe that convergence poses at least somewhat of a challenge to their
station's ability to maintain its niche in the market ([X.sub.2] =
16.48, df = 2, p < .001, V = .213). In other words, the less time one
spends producing convergence content, the better they feel about it.
Conversely, those who dedicate more of their workday to convergence are
more likely to be concerned about its effects on the news/journalistic
product.
Because the average news worker spends less than 30 minutes per day
on convergence, some readers might think that "concerned" news
staffers are simply complainers--unhappy with their growing workload. As
such, some might wonder whether their judgment about decreasing quality
is biased. While that is certainly possible, it is also possible to
interpret their opinions in another way. While 30 minutes per day may
seem like a relatively short amount of time, to those who work in the
television news industry, a half-hour represents something much
different. Only a decade ago, news producers and reporters commonly
produced newscasts at 6 and 11 p.m. only--totaling an hour of news per
day. According to this study, TV stations aired more than 4 hours, on
average, of news per day. Coupled with shrinking budgets and staff
sizes, news workers now have to produce more than ever before, with
fewer resources. For some respondents, even spending 10 or 15 minutes on
convergence is "lost" time--time that could be devoted to
improving journalistic performance--following story leads, polishing
writing, conducting research, and checking sources.
Perceptions and Market Size. Among all the news workers surveyed,
reporters and producers in medium-sized markets appeared to have the
most negative perceptions about the effects of convergence. Those in
DMAs 51-100 were significantly more likely than their peers in smaller
markets to feel pressure from management to produce convergent content.
They were also significantly more likely to indicate that their
peers' workload was increasing and that the quality of that work
was suffering. These findings run contrary to the researchers'
expectations.
Based on previous research, it was expected that workers in DMAs
51-100 would feel more positive about convergence than their peers in
smaller markets because larger markets are more likely to dedicate staff
to producing convergent content. This was not the case among the
stations/markets studied. Results showed no relationship between
convergence staffing and market size ([X.sup.2] = 4.494, df = 4, p =
.15). Results did show, however, that producers and reporters in DMAs
51-100 were responsible for producing significantly more hours of news
per day than workers in smaller markets ([X.sup.2] = 20.811, df = 4,
p< .001; Cramer's V = .245).
Perhaps higher negative feelings towards convergence in medium
markets stem directly from the lack of additional resources and
increased pressure to produce more news in markets known to be more
competitive. This assumption is reflected in open-ended statements from
several respondents. When asked about what they would tell their bosses
about convergence, for example, numerous respondents from these markets
said things such as "more manpower is needed," "we are
maxed out," and "unless more staff is added to handle the
additional workload, overall quality of all products will be
reduced."
Despite these concerns, it is unlikely their bosses can (or will)
do much to change current conditions. Competition is growing,
cost-cutting measures are being instituted throughout the industry, and
pressure is mounting to produce new and different kinds of content to
attract fragmenting audiences. Whether they like it or not, most
managers and news workers understand convergence is here to stay.
Open-ended responses show news workers realize the increasingly
important part convergence plays in their employer's strategic
plans to gain exposure, audience, and advertising revenue. As one
respondent put it: "At first it's a real challenge, but you
learn quickly to adjust to the market. If you don't, your newsroom
ends up at a loss." Another worker said: "I understand the
reasons behind convergence, but I'm not a fan." But some other
workers are fans and say it draws necessary attention to the station:
"Our newsroom is heavily invested in terms of time and talent with
convergence--it seems to work very well. It gives us a bigger presence
and ability to reach new viewers.... We are always looking for new ways
to get our product out there."
Convergence Duties in Detail
In addition to gauging news workers' perspectives about
convergence, another central goal of this study was to describe the
specific kinds of convergence tasks staffers were performing. Results
indicate that, in local television newsrooms today, nearly 70% of the
reporters and producers now personally perform tasks for media other
than their own TV stations. Typically, that meant generating content for
their station's Web site, followed by another TV station, then
radio. A full 100% of respondents said their station now had an online
presence. Only about half of those stations, however, had added staff to
help with computer-based content.
Most convergent-related activities that reporters and producers
were tasked with involved re-purposing content for a Web site. Such jobs
include summarizing and then posting stories that have already run on
their newscasts. In addition, many news workers said they had taken part
in online question and answer sessions with viewers. Generally, however,
little or no new information was being produced for the audience. Very
few respondents said they provided still pictures, added additional
facts, or posted links for stories on the Web. Not a single person said
he or she created an Internet-only story. In one interesting finding,
less than 22% of respondents reported providing unaired video or sound
bites for their station's Web site and only 12% provided streaming
video of selected stories--surprising because video is so readily
available at TV stations.
Almost none of their duties involve what some experts would call
"true convergence"--such as a TV reporter working with a local
newspaper reporter and writing and producing an investigative piece for
both media. These results are in line with previous studies (Papper,
2005; Tanner & Duhe, 2005) that suggest television stations are not
necessarily practicing innovative and new forms of convergence
journalism or requiring their newsroom employees to truly report for
multiple media.
Considerations: Response Rates, Online Design, and Sample Frame
Finally, some of the biggest insights gleaned from this study did
not involve specific survey responses. Instead, they involve the process
of developing the study's sample frame, the authors' choice of
survey method, and the process of achieving an acceptable response rate.
All three could be viewed as limitations by readers and, as such, are
worthy of further consideration.
Response Rate and Online Survey Design. Only 20% of news workers
who received a request to participate in this study actually filled out
a survey. While response rates on broadcast news surveys vary widely in
peer-reviewed media journals, ranging from 20% (Chan-Olmsted & Ha,
2003; Chan-Olmsted & Kim, 2001) to approximately 50% (Bradshaw,
Foust, & Bernt, 2005; Ha & Chan-Olmsted, 2004), response rates
are notoriously lower for Internet surveys. According to Wimmer &
Dominick (2006), rates typically range between 1% and 30% (p. 205). By
current standards, then, the response rate to this survey is reasonably
good.
Still, there is cause to wonder whether the results can be
generalized to the larger population of newsrooms practicing convergence
nationwide and whether the choice of a Web-based survey was the best
approach. The authors believe the answer is yes on both accounts.
Besides being cheaper, easier, and more cost-effective, Internet
research has several advantages specific to the study of television news
workers. Because they are busy professionals, frequently out in the
field, working on deadline, working unusual shifts, and working in
different time zones, reporters and producers are notoriously difficult
to reach--making them a perfect population for an Internet survey
approach versus a phone survey (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006, p. 422).
Generally, the current authors believed news workers would be more
likely to fill out a survey if they could do it on their own schedule
and proceed at their own pace. Additionally, because news workers spend
hours in front of computers as part of their daily routine, it was
assumed a Web survey would not deter them from participating (as might
be the case with members of the general public). Finally, there is no
guarantee that response rates would be higher if they had received the
survey by mail. In fact, with survey fatigue rising among news workers,
it is possible response rates achieved through this survey method were
higher than would be reached through other means.
As for the representativeness of the sample, according to Wimmer
and Dominick (2006), there is no way for researchers to determine if an
Internet sample is representative of the population from which the
sample was selected (p. 424). While there is no way to guarantee that
this sample is representative of all reporters and producers in small
and medium markets across America, there is evidence to suggest the
results are generalizable. The most compelling evidence involves the
demographics of survey respondents. When gender, race, age, job title,
and market size are taken into consideration, the makeup of the survey
respondents fits roughly within the parameters of the population at
large. Even though the response rate is relatively low at 20%, there is
nothing to suggest a larger sample would be any more representative of
the population (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006 p. 422).
Sample Frame. Finally, the difficulty locating potential research
subjects and building the sample frame bear further consideration. Many
previous researchers have studied convergence by assessing the
perspectives of news managers. This makes a great deal of sense given
that managers' names and station affiliations are readily available
through organizations such as the Radio-Television News Directors
Association (RTNDA) and the National Association of Television Program
Executives (NATPE). No such lists exist, however, for news workers. For
this study, constructing the sample frame was laborious and
time-consuming. Individual stations were called numerous times and
managers were asked (in some cases, begged) to provide the names of
reporters and producers. The process took several months and, in some
cases, proved to be problematic. Many news managers were simply
unwilling or unable to provide such information. Producers' names
were especially difficult to obtain because, unlike reporters, they work
largely behind the scenes. Their names and faces are not publicly
displayed on the station's newscasts or Web site and for some
reason the stations feel these news workers deserve anonymity.
Media ownership issues further complicated development of the
sample frame. Early on, students who called to obtain the names of
reporters and producers discovered many duplicate names between stations
in the same market. For example, they found the same reporters worked
for WWXX and WWYY but the two stations did not share producers.
Confusion quickly set in. It became increasingly difficult to determine
who worked for which station and how best to cull the sample frame (so
that duplicate survey requests were not sent out to potential
respondents). Researchers made several follow-up calls to clarify and
correctly amend the list. Even during those calls, in some cases,
employees were unable to describe whether they worked for a duopoly
(where the same company owned both stations) or as part of an LMA (where
one company hires another to produce its news). Such matters make
developing a quality sample frame tricky, a complication that will only
increase as consolidation takes hold in more media markets. Ultimately,
data revealed 40% of respondents worked for a duopoly.
Whether studying convergence or any other media topic, these
problems have direct bearing on communications research. A review of the
past 10 years of several peer-reviewed journalism and mass
communications journals revealed few, if any, studies of local
television news that surveyed staffers. The authors believe the dearth
of literature related to the daily routines of working journalists,
especially in television, could be related to factors such as those
described above. In years to come, one would expect it to become
increasingly difficult to construct quality sample frames and gather
national survey data. Although news managers' expectations and
viewpoints are important, for a more complete understanding of the news
process, it is critical that communications scholars examine the news
staffers and their workplace realities. These workers can have a
significant impact on what information is ulti