The story quota has ended; A blow to assembly line journalism

      Imagine a system in which a long newspaper story with eight sources counts the same as a quicky with two sources. A feature that takes half a week is credited the same as a piece that takes half a day.      This journalism atrocity, a system that actually encourages shallow work, a story quota with no concern for quality, was euphemistically called the Points system at the Pantagraph. Last week during small group meetings, editor Mark Pickering announced its end.     Former editor Terry Greenberg and current publisher Linda Lindus imposed the system after the Lee Enterprises buyout of the Pantagraph and all other Pulitzer Inc. properties.      Mr. Pickering told us it was on his agenda all along – and I believe him.
He’s a solid journalist who just completed his first year as chief editor
of the paper.

     He said Ms. Lindus didn’t oppose his wish to terminate the system. I
believe that too, given the current atmosphere.

     I will also add partial credit to the Pantagraph union drive. Here’s why:
It was a rallying point, a Lee policy that received near-universal contempt in the newsroom. The St. Louis Newspaper Guild, our organizing group, used it as an example of poor practices when it wrote about the organizing drive in its last newsletter.

     So, the company eliminated an issue for the union while enacting a policy that promotes sound journalism.

     The quota system, measured in monthly point totals, carried threat of
discipline. To my knowledge, no one was actually disciplined for missing
points. I do know that there was pressure. And people took shortcuts,
looked for cheap points and spent less time on better stories – or avoided them altogether. I also know that I told Mr. Greenberg point blank that his system was blatantly unfair and bad for journalism and he seemed unmoved and that Ms. Lindus defended the system as “fair” when I complained to her about it.

     An old evaluation method replaces the quota. Under it, direct supervisors supervise. They look at what writers are capable of and analyze what and how they are meeting potential and growing as journalists and how well they are serving readers. And, yes, we have to fill the paper, so we still don’t have all year to work on something. A count of bylines is one tool for the analysis.

     It’s an inexact evaluation, but journalism is that way. The person on the
cops beat scores less bylines than the person working city hall. I’ve done
both, and my supervisors understood the way that works.

     They understood – and we all understood — what Mr. Greenberg evidently didn’t: You can’t measure good journalism with a spreadsheet.