Monday March 26 2007

Guardian staff ask questions about 24/7 working

Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger is hosting a series of hour-long meetings
with staff to consider the implications and ramifications behind the proposals
to introduce 24/7 coverage. I went along to one this afternoon, which was
attended by a mix of Guardian newsprint and online staff, and probably
some Observer journalists too. We crowded into Rusbridger's office to air
concerns and ask questions.
Rusbridger set the tone for the discussion with a bullet-point document
setting out the themes and challenges the staff face in the future. He started
off by saying that that response to the 24/7 announcement has been very
positive, with almost no-one opposing the plan. He agreed that there were no
hard-and-fast answers to the various problems raised by becoming one of
the world's continuous news providers.
What became very clear once the staff spoke was the continuing division in
culture and understanding between print and web, despite the advances The
Guardian has made. Only full integration will sort that out. But this matter
aside, the obvious concerns were about the demands that greater working
flexibility may cause. How would that work? Would everyone become a multi-
media hack?
This was expressed well by a feature writer who said: "I've already lost track
of where my working week begins and ends... how do we begin to define
what working week is, and what it will be?" He was referring to the demands
on his time from various departments ahead of integration and ahead of 24/7
working.
A sub-editor said with some passion: "Our liberal voice is our strong point,
and text is our strong point rather than TV or radio. That's what we need to
be doing. Inserts of video are fine, but not the whole bloody thing."
Rusbridger was reassuring on that point. Unlike the Daily Telegraph editor
Will Lewis, he said, he did not believe everyone should be expected to do
everything. Some might write and video; others might not.
What really emerged, crystal clear, was Rusbridger's restatement of the
underlying reasons for making this leap into the future, even though the
future itself remains unclear. He said: "The print-on-paper model [for
newspapers] isn't making money and isn't going to make money. It's no
longer sustainable. Though the future is unknowable, we are taking an
educated guess about what we should be doing and where we should be
going."
As an example of the speed of technological change he passed round an
example of an electronic print reader (having downloaded the CIA handbook)
to show what's already available. We all know that e-print is going to get
much better, and very soon if Sony's experiments, and those of some rivals,
work out.
But these staff meetings, with more tomorrow, indicate the sense of urgency.
With ad revenue slipping gradually away from print and growing on the web
(about 12% of Guardian revenue comes from web advertising and it's
growing at 50% a year) it is of paramount importance that the websites are
consistently upgraded and refined.
To do that, of course, all the paper's journalists must become familiar with
the demands of providing news, features, comment and analysis for people
across the globe whenever they want it. It's a big ask, of course. But it's also
bloody exciting, isn't it?

Comments
True. I think to that extent I have to commend the Guardian for being
at the forefront. I remember years and years ago when the Guardian
used to allow people to put its headlines on their websites for free and
even show people how to do it... I think that did a lot to build brand
presence and ultimately marketshare.
Posted by SunnyCloudy on March 26, 2007 4:09 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
I'm glad I don't work for the Guardian. They have a tiny staff as it is -
how are they supposed to originate material 24/7? It simply does not
add up. Anyone who has worked a late shift on a national title will
confirm this. After hours, it's very difficult to significantly move a story
on. All that will happen is that they will be rewriting the wires and
ripping material off. This is lowest common denominator journalism,
nothing to aspire to or be excited by, Roy. You keep banging on about
the move from print to the web as though it is going to reinvigorate the
industry but the opposite is in fact true. It's a complete sham
underpinned by a desire to cut costs and will only make already
shallow coverage shallower. Comment and comment and comment.
What are you going to do when there is nothing to comment on? Your
take on this is becoming frighteningly skewed - where's the
perspective, the rationale in your views? Exciting? Rewriting PA at
4am? No...
Posted by JimmyRichards on March 26, 2007 4:17 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
Jimmy seems to miss the point. The rhythm of a newsroom is changing.
It will not be linked to a newspaper deadline - which is not a real
deadline at all, only one that is imposed because of the mechanics of
printing. It's the same in television, or will be soon - we do not know
have to wait until 10pm to watch the main news.
Posted by charlieb1 on March 26, 2007 4:29 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
God help us. The rhythm of news is linked to the fact that people are
generally at work and available to talk to reporters between the hours
of nine in the morning and six pm at night - it's got nothing to do with
newspaper deadlines! Trust me, it's harder to get a steer on a story at
3.30am than at 3.30pm. Obvious, isn't it?
Posted by JimmyRichards on March 26, 2007 5:12 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
JimmyRichards - Does only the UK count to you? Do only stories that
break in office hours count to you? What about the rest of the world?
What about stories that happen at weekends? Have you heard of
mobile telephones? You don't have to be sat in an office to talk to a
reporter/contact any more
Posted by Busfield on March 26, 2007 5:30 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
Jimmy. Just watch out for that train.
Posted by charlieb1 on March 26, 2007 5:35 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
JimmyRichards - 24/7 is not just about updating stories that happen in
the middle of the night. It's also about updating stories at noon, at
2.15pm or 4.30pm or whenever, and not just doing one version at the
end of the day, which is often out of date by the time it's published.
Obviously the Guardian isn't going to staff up through the night with
nearly as many journalists as are on during the day, not by a long
chalk. But stuff happens at night and at weekends - for example the
Cumbria train crash happened at 8.15pm, and the next most important
development, the revelation that the points were at fault, came
through at lunchtime on Saturday. Users of guardian.co.uk expect
comprehensive coverage of stories like that, whenever they happen.
Posted by MattWells on March 26, 2007 5:36 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
Another Monday, and another Monday that I haven't bought a
Guardian.I'm an on-line reader now. I can cherry-pick the stuff I want to
read (Media Guardian, Greenslade, Russell Brand, Frank Keating, a lot
of the sports coverage) and I do the same with other newspaper
websites, too.You might be interested to know that a lot of us don't
read the Guardian for its left-liberal politics, but for its superb writing
and - yes - its unique take on a number of subjects (not to be confused
with politics).Also on my `favourites' slate is the Daily Telegraph (which
I used to buy, too), the bbc (who don't have to bother with
newsprint)and the regional press.For what it's worth, I think the
Guardian is the best website of the lot.I'm afraid some Guardian
journalists have got to take a reality check. I don't read your website
for news-sport stories that are stuck in the same time-slot as
newspapers. I expect that material to be constantly up-dated. You must
become 24/7 or perish. And really, it's all to do with your survival, and
nothing to do with managements trying to screw you.I'm a lifelong
newspaper reader - in my mid-fifties - and have only recently had a
home computer. I used to love browsing through newsprint, but now
I've lost the habit. I wish you all luck in working out how to fund a
website business.
Posted by NewcastleTony on March 26, 2007 5:59 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
how wonderful that the internal machinations of the guardian should
be exposed to such industry scrutiny. Not another "business" in the
country would even consider it... brilliant! liberal doesn't do you lot
justice.
Posted by chou on March 26, 2007 6:30 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
Back home, and without the benefit of wi-fi on the train, I was unable
to follow the comments. Messrs Busfield and Wells have taken the
words from my mouth, so there's no need for me to respond further to
the comments they dealt with. Thank you also to NewcastleTony and
chou for their observations. But there's one thing that I realised I had
failed to mention from the Rusbridger meeting, and it touches on both
the culture and the content of The Guardian's online 24/7 coverage. It
is not intended that the paper should become a quasi-news agency.
That would be a pointless exercise for several reasons, but two are
obvious: i) agencies already exist and have the structures to do the job
of news-breaking better than any paper; ii) The Guardian is about
added value, about interpreting news. That does not mean, as
Rusbridger and other speakers at the meeting said, simply rewriting
agency copy, or topping-and-tailing it. It means contextualising,
explaining, researching, interviewing. In other words, it means that the
paper's website will carry fresh reporting, updated whenever feasible,
along with analysis. That's what the paper does now, in print and
online, but the 24/7 commitment means doing that on a continuous
basis. Some commenters seem to be locked into a deadline midnight
paradigm. But journalists who hope to carry out the mission to inform
in future need to adjust their mind-set. The media is changing and so
must they.
Posted by RoyGreenslade on March 26, 2007 8:14 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
Thank you, Matt Wells, for pointing out what I thought was obvious, but
seems, reading other comments, not to be - that news happens 24
hours a day. Therefore, it seems logical that journalists should be able
to update stories throughout the day and night, rather than only
issuing one report a day, which might quickly become
wrong/outdated/obsolete.
Newspapers are increasingly putting equal emphasis on their online
presence and this seems to be a necessity in today's society where
there is 24 hour news available on TV. I find it frustrating if I hear of a
story and can't find an up-to-date explanation of it online. Although I
admit I'm a bit of a news junkie, a straw poll of my friends - from many
different walks of life - suggests many of us now expect a fast response
from all forms of media, and it would be commercial suicide surely for
editors not to respond to the needs of their audience.
Posted by globalnomad on March 26, 2007 8:32 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
Matt etc
I have no problem with expecting that stories be updated over the
weekend or even during the night. But what I'm saying is that if you
spend all day and night constantly tweaking copy so that it is as up to
date as possible, when do you actually have any time to originate any
material? The truth of the matter is that the Guardian, as Roy himself
points out, will merely become a forum for comment on news that
other people originate. To quote him: 'Agencies already exist and have
the structures to do the job of news-breaking better than any paper'.
Well, I'd disagree. As the situation stands in the UK currently a lot of
newspapers still retain the structures necessary to break stories.
Undoubtedly regional news agencies do as well (and PA, too,
occassionally) but to me it's an important role of the natioanl press to
dig up news. You can't do that unless you have the time to work on a
story. You may think that daily deadlines are obsolete, but often a
working day is what it takes to get a decent story...Better to miss the
train than arrive somewhere no-one else is going. Man.

Posted by JimmyRichards on March 26, 2007 9:35 PM.

Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
It's a shame that NewcastleTony only 'cherry picks' what he wants to
read. This is the big problem with on-line news reading, only reading a
narrow band of interest.The pleasure I get from buying a printed copy
of The Guardian is coming across articles and photos I would never
have gone to read on a website.And as for the technology, I challenge
anyone to drop their Sony eReader, or sit on it, or scribble a telephone
number on it, spill a bit of coffee over it, use it to mop up a drop of spilt
coffee, swipe a fly with it, or shrug their shoulders when they leave it
on the train . . . . Or pay 70p for it.Sorry, drifted off topic on the story of
proposed 24/7 working, but I think my comment is related to the
uncertainty in newspapers now, and the 'blinded by science' view of
the future.
Posted by regionalhack on March 26, 2007 10:04 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
JimmyRichards, let me explain the news agencies remark. I am not
saying that The Guardian should not be in the breaking news business.
Of course it should, most especially - but not only - within Britain. But
no single paper has ever been able to break every item of news within
Britain, let alone the rest of the world. That's why media outlets have
relied on news agencies. Anyway, there are different kinds of news.
Traditionally, surprising news events - disasters, for example - are
broken by agencies. But papers tend to break news which relies on the
relationships between sources and journalists. (I could write an essay
on the different strands of news and who is usually responsible for
reporting them).In the 24/7 context, newspapers cannot be expected
to break news across the world. Now that the globe is the new news
arena, it is impossible for a single paper to do other than rely on
agencies for that first form of news I just mentioned. This still leaves a
huge space for the added value of Guardian journalism and the chance
to build a reputation for credibility and authority among a world-wide
audience.
Posted by RoyGreenslade on March 26, 2007 11:06 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
RegionalHack makes a great point. I too buy the physical Guardian as
well as checking online and the delight is intelligent, well written
pieces that I don't expect about topics I never thought I'd find
interesting.I'm more in music than journalism but we're going through
similar - if not greater - massive changes, with downloading taking
over and physical sales collapsing.But the urge for interactive has
hidden the fact that the vast majority of listeners/readers want to be
able to trust others, who know what they are doing, to filter for us.The
bigger You Tube and My Space get, the less useful they become.My
point is - the quality and ability to pick, display, find and promote
quality remains identical, whether it's online or onpaper.One of the
reasons I come online to the Guardian (one of the best and earliest
sites - why were the Mail and Sun, such well run papers, so far behind
online?) is to find Roy's intelligent and informed commentary.I miss it
from the paper.I would like it in both places (I'm not a Standard fan).
Posted by JK2006 on March 27, 2007 6:38 AM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
One problem about 24/7 is that it requires a lot of commitment from
reporters. Reporters need their rest, their evenings and days off like
anyone else, yet the flow of news will not always respect this. Because
"added value" depends on specialists, the specialists need to be
almost permanently on hand to deliver that "added value" if it is to be
delivered sufficiently soon after the initial news event. Unless each
specialism has more than one specialist, you're requiring a hell of a lot
from a single reporter.I believe there is a danger too that the 24/7
mentality will bind people more and more to their desks as they check
the wires and wait for the next big event, and discourage traditional
activities such as reading the papers in detail, quiet rooting around and
productive long lunches. Some reporters are better at this than others,
but those that thrive on it need to be given that space.
Posted by RevBeeb on March 27, 2007 11:57 AM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.