As television news in the United States became profitable in the 1970s and stations adopted electronic newsgathering technology, news organizations expanded and roles became increasingly specialized. One of the outgrowths of this specialization was a strong division between the responsibilities of reporters and of producers. With later deadlines and "live" capability, reporters had less time to provide journalistic perspective and were under more pressure to think on their feet. Producers took control of the new technology and, in the process, increased their editorial control over reporters' stories.

This division of labor between the reporter and the producer seems to have produced a conflict in the electronic newsroom paralleling the mythical split between reporter and editor in the print newsroom. The producer, according to this new myth, has become the representative of the show business side of news production. The reporter has remained the protector of the more noble goals of journalism in the television newsroom.

While it is not possible to explore all dimensions of this new myth, data available from a national sample of television reporters and news producers allow for an examination of differences between these two groups of broadcast journalists in terms of professional training, motivations for pursuing careers in broadcast journalism, their career plans, the manner in which they would handle a hypothetical news decision and their demographic characteristics.

Background

The number of full-time employees in the median local TV newsroom in the United States increased from 9.5 in 1972 to 18.4 in 1985, according to Stone.[1] Johnstone, Slawski and Bowman have observed that such organizational growth in journalism makes editorial control more hierarchical and newsworkers more specialized.[2] Bantz, McCorkle and Baade [3] and Yoakam [4] have noted that this increasing specialization in the 1970s changed the reporter's role and increased the power of producers. Diamond [5] and Powers [6] have suggested style now outweighs substance in television news, presumably because of the greater specialization. Diamond [7] and MacNeil [8] seem particularly to have furthered the myth that producers represent everything that is wrong with television journalism, in implicit contrast with nobel reporters.

Another key issue in this debate is alleged misuse by producers of "live" coverage. The president of Post-Newsweek television stations, for example, has said electronic journalists often use "live" technology simply because they have it.[9] Television news directors responding to a 1982 survey were more likely to see "live" capability as a negative rather than positive influence on news content.[10] Powers [11] and Daviss [12] have faulted local television news for its needless use of "live" technology to hype coverage.

Hidden behind much of this discussion is the issue of professionalism. This concept, deeply rooted in the sociology of work literature, was transferred to the communications area by the early work of McLeod and Hawley, among others. However, professionalism may not be the only, or even most important, characteristic to study when examining journalists. Becker, Fruit and Caudill have explicitly challenged the preoccupation with this concept.[13] Also of concern are such things as training differences and motivations to pursue careers in journalism.

Research Questions

If the new myth in television news is true, reporters are the guardians of journalistic virtue while producers represent the corruption of news by show business values. If this were so, we would expect reporters to focus more on substance, and producers to be more concerned with style and presentation. This study examines the "substance versus style" issue in terms of four groups of variables.

I) Reactions to a hypothetical scenario that pits a journalistic value (coverage of a school levy) against a presentation value (a more dramatic but less meaningful "live" shot). Respondents were asked how the decision should be made (a news value) and how they believed it would be made by most producers (an evaluation of industry norms). If the new myth is true, reporters would presumably be more likely than producers to select the school levy over the "live" shot, and both groups would be expected to give similar descriptions of industry norms that favor the more dramatic "live" coverage.

II) The journalistic orientation of reporters and producers in terms of three evaluative variables: 1) how each group assesses the amount of background information reporters in the respondent's newsroom usually have for their stories, 2) how each group assesses the degree of specialized knowledge those reporters generally bring to the beats they cover, and 3) the degree to which the newscast at the respondent's station represents his or her personal journalistic standards. If the new myth is true, we would expect reporters to be more critical than producers of the level of reporter preparedness in each newsroom, and we would expect reporters to be more critical than producers of the newscasts produced by each of these news organizations.

III) The presentation orientation of reporters and producers in terms of two style variables that pertain to show-business aspects of television news: 1) the degree to which the newscast at the respondent's station represents that reporter's or producer's personal standards for how the medium should be used visually, and 2) the degree to which the respondent shows concern about the unnecessary "live" shots that critics charge appear in television newscasts. If the new myth is true, we would expect producers to be more presentation-oriented than reporters.

IV) The motivations of reporters and producers for choosing their respective lines of work. If reporters are the guardians of journalistic virtue while producers care more about presentation, as Diamond and MacNeil have suggested, we would expect reporters to indicate altruistic motivations, and producers to be more likely motivated by the excitement of TV production.

These four variable clusters also allow examination of reporters and producers in terms of the literature on journalistic professionalism, and of local TV news producers in comparison to the network producers studied by Epstein.[14]

If news producers are less professionally oriented than TV reporters, professionalism studies by McLeod and Hawley,[15] Lattimore and Nayman,[16] Weinthal and O'Keefe,[17] and Idsvoog and Hoyt[18] suggest they will be less critical of their station's newscasts. If, as Epstein suggests, the producer's primary role is to enforce organizational norms, producers are likely to be less idealistic about journalism, less interested in journalism, and more interested in control over newswork. If Epstein was correct in observing that reporting is a calling but producing is a job, producers could be expected to enjoy the work less and be more influenced than reporters by practical, rather than idealistic, concerns.

These are the issues explored in this study.

Method

These hypotheses were tested via a secondary analysis of data collected for another purpose.[19] For the earlier study, two hundred network-affiliated television stations were selected randomly by numbering all non-satellite affiliates listed in the 1985 Broadcasting- Cablecasting Yearbook and generating random numbers in that range. Telephone calls yielded the names of 199 early evening producers [20] and 200 dayside assignment editors from the 200 stations.[21] During late 1985 and early 1986, up to two letters were sent to each assignment editor requesting names of all full-time reporters at each station. If no response was received, up to two more letters were sent to each news director. This effort and telephone follow-up yielded names of 1453 reporters at 174 of the 200 stations (87%).

Budget restraints precluded surveying every reporters, so 793 were selected randomly by assigning a number [to] each reporter and generating random numbers in that range. All 199 of the producers were included in the final sample. After three questionnaire mailings, usable responses were obtained from 512 reporters (65%) and 126 producers (63%). There were no significant differences between demographics of early and late respondents in either group. The combined response represented 180 television stations in 120 television markets in 48 states and the District of Columbia (90% completion rate for stations). The survey was conducted between May and August, 1986.

To generate Group I variables, a hypothetical scenario was developed to examine reporter and producer perspectives on the alleged misuse of "live" technology. Respondents were asked whether they believed staged political events in general, such as the one described in the scenario, should be covered "live"; and were asked to evaluate two journalistic reasons and one organizational reason for covering such an event "live." Respondents were also asked whether they believed most producers would cover such an event "live" in each of the four contexts.

These two sets of questions allowed examinations of reporters' and producers' news values, and provided a means of identifying any discrepancies in how reporters and producers assess actual news practices. The amount of difference between the responding reporter's or producer's news value and assessment of actual industry practice in each of the four contexts provided a means of determining the degree to which industry practices deviate from the respondent's journalistic values.

A panel of experts, consisting of news producers from a large, medium and small television market, judged the hypothetical scenario to be a realistic representation of the values and pressures involved in making such decisions.[22]

Group II and Group III variables were derived from a series of questions that asked respondents to evaluate the preparedness of reporters who worked in their news organizations, the quality of newscasts produced by those organizations, and the general tendency of news organizations to use unnecessary "live" coverage.

Group IV variables are based on responses to this open-ended question: "What motivated you to become a television news reporter (producer)?" Eighty-six percent of responding reporters (N=442) and 83% of responding producers (N=105) provided usable descriptions of their motivations.

Examination of self-reports of why respondents pursued careers as reporters or producers indicated the statements could be coded into eight independent categories: enjoy journalism, enjoy television, enjoy current events, practical reasons (such as "fell into it" or "had the right skills"), idealistic reasons (such as "the chance to make a difference" or "social responsibility"), personal gain (such as "career advancement" or "more money than print journalism"), control over newswork and outside influence (such as "admired Walter Cronkite," "my colleage experience," "Vietnam," etc.).

After independently coding a random sample of motivation statements, a second coder agreed 69% of the time with the primary coder. The relatively low intercoder reliability should be kept in mind when interpreting the motivational analysis below.

Results

Average age of television reporters and of producers was 30, similar to the mean of 31 obtained by Weaver and Wilhoit [23] in their 1982 survey of 239 television and radio journalists. Education levels of reporters and producers were nearly identical, with 90% of reporters and 89% of producers having college degrees. Reporters were significantly more likely than producers to have majored in Journalism. Producers were significantly more likely than reporters to be women, though female producers were significantly younger than their mail counterparts.[24]

The early-evening producer at an average station had about a year and a half more TV news experience than the average reporter at such a station and had worked in four-tenths more television newsrooms. Forty-two percent of reporters and 37% of producers indicated membership in at least one professional organization, with 18% of reporters and 15% of producers members of The Society of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi. These are similar to rates of professional membership among journalists surveyed by Weaver and Wilhoit.[25]

Producers were four times more likely than reporters to consider themselves on the career path to news management. Among 219 reporters and 58 producers who indicated interest in changing jobs during the next 10 years, 62% of the producers but only 15% of the reporters said they aspired to television management jobs. Ten percent of the reporters were interested in becoming producers, and nine percent of the producers wanted to be reporters. Forty-seven percent of the reporters who wanted to change jobs during the next 10 years said they wanted to leave television news, compared to only 24% of like-minded producers.

Contrary to expectation, reporters and producers showed nearly identical news values in their assessments of whether a school levy story should be dumped to make room for "live" coverage of the local mayor returning from an out-of-town trip (Table 1). Both groups in aggregate favored keeping the school levy story and killing the "live" shot, regardless of the reason given for using it. On three of the four scales, producers were slightly more inclined than reporters to select the school levy story over the "live" coverage.

Assessments of industry norms indicate reporters are more likely than producers to believe most producers would use the "live" shot at the expense of the school levy story, especially if producers were being pressured by management to use "live" coverage regularly. The differences between news values and assessments of industry norms suggest a significant conflict between the journalistic values of reporters and producers and existing TV news norms about when stories should be covered "live." Both groups indicate "live" coverage is often used without journalistic justification.

On each of the three journalistic orientation scales, reporters were more critical than producers of practices within their own newsrooms, as expected (Table 2). Reporters were slightly more likely than producers to say non-news stories get on local news because they are easy to do "live," also as expected. Reporters were, however, more critical than producers of one of the presentation variables, the visual quality of their station's newscast. This is contrary to prediction.

Although there were few demographic differences between reporters and producers, the two groups indicated substantially different motivations for choosing careers in television news (Table 3). Reporters were significantly more likely than producers to say they got into news because they enjoyed their work and enjoyed journalism and because of the influence of a person, experience or event. Producers, on the other hand, were significantly more likely to say they entered the field because of the opportunity for control over newswork or for pragmatic reasons.

These differences were particularly salient in computer analysis of word frequencies in statements by reporters and producers about why they got into television news (Table 4). Although both groups were about equally likely to mention writing and creativity, reporters were much more likely to use the works "people," "live," "variety," "curiosity," "fun" and "current events." Producers were much more likely to mention "control," "manage," and "power."

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to find out whether news producers are different from television reporters in ways that might affect the journalistic integrity of television news. Our data show that producers are less critical than reporters of their stations' newscasts, which previous studies suggest might mean they are less professional. Producers are also likely to have pursued television news careers for more pragmatic and less idealistic reasons than reporters. But there is little evidence that reporters are fighting for the journalistic integrity of television news against producers who are interested only in the show-business aspects of television.

Studies by Ismach and Dennis, Weinthal and O'Keefe, and Weaver and Wilhoit have suggested that greater professionalism is characterized by higher education levels. Since reporters and producers have virtually identical educational backgrounds, they share much of the same media socialization. Like print editors described by Weaver and Wilhoit, producers have more professional experience than reporters and have worked in a larger number of newsrooms. This may give producers more opportunity for professional socialization.

Ismach and Dennis and Weinthal and O'Keefe used membership in professional organizations as a measure of professionalism, but this measure yields no significant differences between the reporters and producers described here. Idsvoog and Hoyt and Weinthal and O'Keefe found that journalists who scored high on a professionalism index were less likely to leave journalism, but Weaver and Wilhoit found that journalists who did plan to leave the field were more likely than others to stress professional values. These distinctions are moot for the reporters and producers described here, because there is no significant difference in the proportion who plan to leave TV news.

It is clear from evaluations of the hypothetical scenario above that reporters expect producers to choose presentation values over journalistic ones, but the two groups are nearly identical in their evaluation of whether a routine political appearance should be covered "live" at the expense of news about a school levy. Reporters and producers were also equally likely to agree many non-news stories get covered "live" because the new technology makes "live" coverage so easy. Producers seem to be just as troubled as reporters by the discrepency between their own values and industry norms for using "live" coverage. These findings suggest that misuse of "live" coverage should not be attributed to the show-business values of producers pitted against a more noble set of journalistic criteria used by reporters.

Producers are substantially different from reporters in terms of self-reports of why they pursued careers in television news, but there is no evidence in our data that these differences mean producers are less qualified as journalists. Producers indicate that they enjoy their work less than reporters and are more likely than reporters to have chosen producing for pragmatic rather than idealistic reasons. Local news producers responding to this study are much like the network produers studied by Epstein 20 years ago in that they come from a somewhat different background than reporters and in that they treat their work more as a job and less as a calling. Producers are much more interested than reporters in the editorial control they wield, lending credence to Epstein's description of producers as the enforces of organizational norms.

Conclusion

Clearly, there are differences between reporters and producers. Producers have more experience in television news and have worked at more stations than reporters. They are less likely to be critical of the newscasts produced by their stations and to think in general that producers degrade television news by making poor judgments about coverage. Producers are more likely than reporters to say they got into television news because it allows them to control the product. In sum, producers are more likely than reporters to take a management orientation to their work.

It seems quite evident from these data that, as the newsrooms have become more complex, job differentiation has taken place. The result is that reporters and producers find themselves in different roles. The reporter is the information gatherer. The producer is the manager. In this sense, the study supports the myth of a split in the television newsroom along the lines of the split in the print newsroom between reporters and editors.

But there is little in these data to support the idea that, if television news has deteriorated since the mid 1970s as many critics charge, producers stand alone as the culprits. Since television news stories receive much less editing than newspaper or magazine stories,[26] reporters must share some of the blame. If Epstein was correct in observing that the primary function of producers is to enforce organizational norms, the shortcomings of television news might be better understood by looking more closely at the organizational constraints within which all newsworkers must function rather than at any particular group of newsworkers.

Note: At the time this article was published, Conrad Smith was an assistant professor and Lee B. Becker was a professor in the School of Journalism at The Ohio State University. The research was funded by a grant from the Graduate School at The Ohio State University. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1988 AEJMC Conference in Portland, Oregon.

During the second block of a newscast, a producer has a chance to get a live shot of the mayor arriving at the airport after returning from a National League of Cities meeting in Phoenix. She suspects he has deliberately timed his arrival during the newscast for the publicity. To cover the arrival, she would have to kill a story about the announcement of a proposed school levy.

The general manager has made it clear that he wants live shots to be used regularly. The mayor is expected to make a brief statement about his role as chairman of the National League of Cities but is not expected to provide anything new.

N=495 for the first set of reporter means, 497 for the other three sets. N-121 for first and third sets of producer means, 120 for the second and fourth sets.

1. Number of stations, using aggregate means of all reporters for each station. Otherwise larger market stations, which tend to employ more reporters, would be overrepresented compared to one early-evening producer per station.

1. Vernon Stone, "The Changing Profiles of Broadcast News Directors," paper presented at the 1986 AEJMC annual Conference in Norman, Oklahoma.

2. John Johnstone, Edward Slawski and William Bowman, The News People (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1976), p. 85.

3. Charles Bantz, Suzanne McCordle and Roberta Baade in "The News Factory," Communication Research, 7:45-68 (January 1980).

4. Richard Yoakam in ENG: Electronic News Gathering in Local Television Stations (Bloomington, Indiana: School of Journalism Center for New Communications Research Report No. 12, 1981).

5. Edwin Diamond, Sign Off: The Last Days of Television (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), pp. 3-25.

6. Ron Powers, The Newscasters: The News Business as Show Business (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1978); "Now! live on the Action Cam! A Reporter Talking!" TV Guide, June 19, 1982, pp. 19-22.

7. Diamond, op. cit., pp. 18-20.

8. Robert MacNeil, The Right Place at the Right Time (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1982), pp. 297-325. See pp. 304-306.

9. Joel Chaseman, "High-Tech in TV Newsrooms; Are We the Victims or Masters?" Variety, Jan. 16, 1985, p. 154.

10. Conrad Smith, "Newsgathering Technology and the Content of Local Television News," Journal of Broadcasting, 28:99-102 (1984).

11. Powers, 1982. op. cit.

12. Ben Daviss, "Shootout in Devner: Man the Minicams, Rev Up the Choppers," TV Guide, Nov. 6, 1982, pp. 34-38.

13. Lee Becker, Jeffrey Fruit and Susan Caudill with Saron Dunwoody and Leonard Tiptom. The Training and Hiring of Journalists (Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex, 1987).

14. Op. cit., pp. 222 & 223.

15. Jack McLeod and Searle Hawley Jr., "Professionalism among Newsmen," Journalism Quarterly, 41: 529-538 (Autumn 1964).

16. Daniel Lattimore and Oguz Nayman, "Professionalism of Colorado's Daily Newsmen: A Communicator Analysis," Gazette, 201-10 (1974).

17. Donald Weinthal and Garrett O'Keefe Jr., "Professionalism among Broadcast Newsmen in an Urban Area," Journal of Broadcasting, 18:193-209 (Spring, 1974).

18. Karl Idsvoog and James Hoyt, "Professionalism and Performance of Television Journalists," Journal of Broadcasting, 21:97-109 (1977).

19. Conrad Smith, "Newsworkers, News Critics and Local Television News, Journalism Quarterly, 65: 341-346 (1988); Conrad Smith, Eric Fredin and Carroll Ann Ferguson, "Sex Discrimination in Earnings and Story Assignments Among TV Reporters," Journalism Quarterly, 65:3-11, 19 (1988).

20. At stations that had no early-evening local newscast, the name of the late evening producer was used.

21. In some small markets, the producer and assignment editor were the same person. In others, the news director performed one or both functions.

22. The description of the situation was modified according to suggestions from the medium market (Columbus, Ohio) producer. Producers from the large and small markets (Houston and Baton Rouge) examined the hypothetical situation after the survey was completed.

23. Op. cit., p. 20.

24. The data here are set up to focus attention on differences between the two groups of broadcast journalists in terms of their educational backgrounds.

25. Op. cit., p. 106.

26. David Weaver, Dan Drew and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, "U.S. Television, Radio and Daily Newspaper Journalists," Journalism Quarterly, 63: 683-692 (Winter 1986), p. 686; Lee Becker, "Print or Broadcast: How the Medium Influences the Reporter," in James Ettema and Charles Whitney, eds., Individuals in Mass Media Organizations: Creativity and Constraint (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1981), po. 145-161; Gay Tuchman, Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality (New York: Free Press, 1978), p. 107.