Management Issues – Page 4 – Survive Your Job In Television News

Transitioning to management.

One of the hardest things to do when you transition to management is to learn when you jump in and when you back away. This takes some trial and error, and a few key reminders.

What managers are truly judged on:

Your team’s successes

Your ability to improve others skills

Your time management

Problem solving on your own

The biggest misconception new managers often have, is that the ratings race is now squarely on their shoulders. This is not true. If you raise the ratings by either doing everything yourself or leading with a reign of terror you will still get the axe.

Your job is to help your entire team succeed. A wise GM once told me, “You are considered a great manager, when you leave and the staff still executes as well or better than when you were there.” Think hard about that statement. If you believe that to really be true, then your first priority as a manager switches from turning the best newscast everyday, to helping others around you improve themselves each day.

Which leads to our next point: Your new role as a manager is not to dive in and redo or fix all the mistakes. Your role is to help others around you improve, so that no one has to routinely dive in and fix others mistakes. The minute you take a management job, you become a mentor. It is that simple. You must know how to help others around you grow and challenge themselves. You are a cheerleader, a reality checker and in many ways a careful observer. So diving in and writing an entire A-block or rewriting every reporter script each day is actually a failure on your part. You are letting your staff down by doing so. You are preventing your staff from succeeding long term.

You also set the example on how to time manage. If you work tireless hours, then take it out on the staff around you, for “being such a mess,” you lose credibility. If you roll in late everyday, leave early several times a week and take long lunches you also lose credibility. Understand that the staff around you keeps a close watch on how hard you work and how long. They take note. They base a tremendous amount of their respect for you on your scheduling. You need to show them how to work hard, while still maintaining some semblance of a life. This shows you are a compassionate, respectful manager who will also honor their hard work and time put in each day.

Finally, if your solution to problems that arise is to go running to the assistant news director or news director for direction, you are dead in the water. Your staff will consider you a joke, and so will your ND. You have to problem solve, largely, by yourself. Of course, if there are potential legal ramifications you do need to consult. But if a reporter is ignoring your orders or a producer is not listening and doing whatever they want, you must fix the issue yourself. Running to the other “parent” to have them hand out the discipline will destroy any chance you have of building credibility. This is an extremely hard lesson. If you try several techniques to no avail, then you need to come to your news director with that list, one-on-one, and provide more suggestions to handle the situation. Never go to the ND and ask him or her to flat out fix it. That’s what you are paid to do now.

So there you have it, go lead by empowering others to challenge themselves. Set up a work routine that you want others to follow. And when an issue arises, come up with a solution and execute. Some decisions will be wrong. Admit it, then fix it. Your staff will learn from this example. It will earn you a lot more credibility than running for guidance and refusing to take a stand yourself.

Making it stick: how to coach newbie journalists.

A big part of my job is coaching, both seasoned and new, journalists. Lately I have been getting DM’s and email from managers asking, “How do you get through? I have no luck, especially getting them to understand the importance of a fact error.”

Here are some techniques I used while working in newsrooms. First, techniques for producers and writers. I would print out scripts that I knew had errors. Then I would sit down with the writer and tell them to do a couple of things. First, take these scripts and circle the 5 w’s. Then I would ask them to highlight the facts in the script, and the matching facts from the source they used. This can be a real eye opener, because it forces whoever wrote the script not only to see the error, but to see that answering the 5 w’s, will help avoid errors. Often if there is a fact error, 1 or more of the 5 w’s either is not in the script at all OR the w’s do not lead to any kind of logical conclusion. So, the light bulb goes off. There’s a problem. Then when the writer looks at the facts from the source, the error often shows up plain as day.

I did this for several reasons. It forces the writer to take ownership of the mistake. It also helps the writer think through how the error happened. After going over several scripts, you can see a pattern where the writer consistently goes wrong. In some cases, the person is unclear about a legal term. In others, the person is not clear about the background of an ongoing story. Both of those things are easy to train and correct, as long as the person recognizes the problem with making the error.

What gets interesting is when the person sees the errors, and is not concerned about it. I would get, “Well the anchor should have caught that.” Or “you copy edited the script, right? Isn’t that your job, to know the facts.” Those producers, writers, reporters etc. then step into phase two of training. The reality check!

Here’s the biggest differentiator between a newbie journalists and a veteran. Veterans understand that these stories we put on the TV screen actually impact lives. We know this for many reasons, not the least being that somewhere along the way, we made a mistake that hurt someone. In my case, my news director made me a call a family and apologize when I aired the name of a minor who was charged with a crime. My old station used the names of juvies. The new station did not. I did not check the policy at the new station. I will never forget how horrified I was when I had to call that family and explain to the parents, that I did not ask my manager if it was OK to air a minor’s name. That reality check changed the way I wrote news. Period. Veteran journalists have stories like this, about omissions or assumptions that really hurt. The wounds are still there, years later. We never look at the box our work plays in the same way again. It doesn’t beam into space for us.

If you can set up a scenario so the writer that made the error has to face up to the mistake, beyond saying sorry to the ND, do it. That reality check may change that newbie’s outlook on news forever.

Now on to reporters. The technique can be similar. I used to have them circle the w’s and highlight the facts. Since I did not always have access to their sources, I would sometimes ask for a name, then have the reporter call and re-verify the facts on the phone in front of me. If the reporter made an assumption, you could see the sweat on the brow. It is a great technique to quickly assess how sure a reporter is about a fact. The ones that double checked, always did it, with no complaints and no concerns.

The other technique I used is printing scripts about a story from each day part. I would include the script with the error. Then I would hand all of the scripts over and ask the writer to show me which script was wrong and explain why. It gets really interesting if you throw in a few wrong scripts from another day part and a writer’s correct script as well. Then you see how comfortable the writer is with their fact checking. If the writer figures all of his/her scripts have errors, you know that person is not comfortable fact checking. That is trainable.

If the writer thinks their scripts are never wrong, you may find the person is more interested in how something sounds, than accuracy. Go to the “reality check” step if at all possible.

The writer who catches the errors, both from themselves and others probably is just a little overwhelmed by volume. Start watching that person’s time management skills. This training technique works for reporters, producers and AP’s.

Hope this helps you make it stick, when it comes to training the importance of accuracy. If you have more training techniques I would love to hear them. Email me or post them on our FB page.

Show us the money. The state of TV news and your paycheck.

The future of TV news, and therefore our own salaries, is something we all wonder about. Many journalists took paycuts in the last few years just to keep our jobs. Veteran journalists are being pushed out, because they now cost too much. Others are considering taking the paycuts they’re offered to make sure they stay put. There are plenty of studies out there pointing to fewer opportunities and less money for TV news. Then there’s Bob Papper’s take. He researches a lot of studies for RTNDA and is a professor and chairs the Department of Journalism, Media Studies, and Public Relations at Hofstra University. I recently spoke to him about the RTNDA/Hofstra University 2012 TV and Radio News Staffing and Profitability Survey. He provided a lot of insight into how he came up with those numbers and what they mean. We also talked about future trends he sees.

Now keep in mind, this man has contact with every ND in America. He also calls and checks in with stations that “hire out” their news from other stations. He even checks in with stations that do not have news, just in case they are in the process of changing their minds. The trend he sees? More newscasts are being created in more time slots. Why is that good news? One word: Demand.

Papper says when considering where TV news is heading, do not simply look at staffing. Other factors come into play, which I will lay out in a minute. Instead Papper says, “If you want to know (about the future) on a systemic basis in the industry, see how much news they are doing each day. Stations added news, while cutting employees. That is not sustainable. Sooner or later you will have to hire more people.” Papper is working on the next staffing and profitability survey right now. He sees more newscasts starting up. He says quote, “Television is doing really, really well.”

So, why the low salaries? Plenty of you DM’d me upset that you were not making the median salaries listed in the RTNDA survey. When I took a closer look, many of the medians measured up to what I made in those market sizes more than a decade ago. Not good when you consider inflation. So I asked how we are really doing? Papper’s answer, “The pay is worse today than 40 years ago.” Why? Supply and demand. Unemployment rates are not helping newsies either. Stations can get away with paying relatively little. Papper’s take, “If you are hiring, you are in control right now.” He says he sees no pressure to raise salaries any time soon, because the rest of the economy is still not doing well.

So is there a light at the end of the tunnel for journalists, grinding out more content, with less help and less pay? Papper says yes, because those extra newscasts starting up are putting a strain on more than just you. Stations are feeling the pinch, and will have to plug the holes, because cutting staff while adding newscasts is not a long term solution. So where are the “relief” hires? “That’s exactly what took place in 2011, and (is) substantially taking place in 2012,” according to Papper. Stations are starting to hire more. So what can you do to make yourself especially marketable in the meantime? Keep dabbling in new media. That will make you stand out, and possibly help you command more cash. Papper’s closing thought for you and me? “New media skills, really can help you stay employed. Part of keeping your job is to move with time.”

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Thank you to Bob Papper. He has put together the salary survey for 19 years. He is a professor, and chairs the Department of Journalism, Media Studies, and Public Relations at Hofstra University. He also is a former producer and news manager.

What you are worth, a closer look at the RTNDA salary survey.

Last week, I was sent a copy of the RTNDA/Hofstra University 2012 TV and Radio News Staffing and Profitability Survey. I tweeted it out and placed it on Facebook so journalists could see what the median salaries are, and how salaries compare to the rate of inflation. (If your bills go up, you need more cash!) Knowledge is power. You may not realize it, but this survey is a gold mine of a resource for journalists.

Several journalists sent me DM’s on Twitter and Facebook saying the survey seemed off. They said the median was too high in many market sizes. And some of you said the low range under television news salaries was too high. These comments came from several market ranges in everything from management jobs, to producers, reporters and anchors. So I contacted the person behind the survey, Bob Papper, to ask how the survey works and what the takeaway is for journalists.

First, he stands by his numbers. The biggest reason: the surveys are sent directly to news directors. He says he contacts every news director in the country. Papper says, “I have a complete list.” The news director is almost always the person who fills the survey out. There is one market where it’s the AND who fills it out. In a few cases the station’s business manager fills it out. Papper says “I get more than 75 percent participation,” because he contacts news directors several times to make sure the surveys are completed. He also checks every television station in the country to make sure they have not added news departments, without him knowing.

Second, he looks at trends over the short and long term. You may remember me mentioning on Facebook, that you should take a look at the 5 and 10 year comparisons, based on inflation. Papper has been doing this survey for 19 years. That’s how he can confidently lay out comparisons like this one. He is seeing consistency in the numbers. That is a way to gauge if the survey is on target. There should not be huge swings, except in extreme cases like the recent housing collapse. Papper says since then the numbers have “normed out” a bit.

Now let’s explain what the median number means. After all, we journalists are not exactly known for our higher math skills. A “median” salary means half make below that number, half earn above it. A median salary is considered a typical salary. For example, when I asked him about producer pay in a top 5 market he said, “If you are a show producer in a top five market and you are not making at least 50 to 60 thousand minimum, you are being screwed.”

But here is where that median salary can get interesting, and why some of you are saying your pay is nowhere near the median. There are three other factors to consider, that no survey can completely counter: Growth markets, individual market differences, and lastly how replaceable you are.

Let’s consider growth markets, and individual market differences. Papper explained that Dallas has just entered into the top 5 markets. It historically is known for paying less anyway, and now it’s a growing market. Papper says, “If your market is a growth market the pay may not match up (to markets of similar size). It will tend to lag. A market that’s growing really fast, it may lag a good bit.” There are other markets that pay more than their typical size as well. Papper says an example is Baton Rouge, LA. “It typically pays above its market size.” That’s why understanding the term median is so important. Median is typical, but not absolute. Half of the salaries can be, and often are, lower. The other half are higher. Working for a station with a major affiliate also comes into play. (FYI, FOX stations are now keeping up with the major affiliates. Except in some tiny markets where Papper says, “people probably qualify for food stamps.”)

Now the big X factor: Your viewed importance in the newsroom. How replaceable are you? Remember the economy comes into play: Simple supply and demand. There are a lot of unemployed newsies looking for work, no matter the pay. Papper says if your pay is way below the median, you have to ask yourself if you are considered a valuable resource at that station. “You can always test the theory by applying for other jobs.” Papper says, “Talk to the boss or shop around.” And, he says, the numbers for anchors can be a little off, “because everyone is considered an anchor nowadays.” This can make it harder to gauge, especially when it comes to salaries for main anchors.

There is one more large factor to consider when looking at this survey. Take into account how many employees work in your newsroom. When considering your own salary, Papper explains you must look at market size, and staff size. (He breaks salaries down by newsroom staff size as well.) And, remember, network affiliates generally pay higher than independents.

So once you look at these factors, does your salary still seem too low? If so, here’s the big takeaway: Ask your ND about it. Again, news directors fill out these surveys. They have a good idea you will be wondering about it. After all, as Papper says, “A news director has no impetus to inflate the salaries they are paying, if anything the news director has an impetus to low ball what they are paying because employees are going to see this stuff.” Some stations post the surveys. News directors who want to show the pay at the station is fair hang them up on the wall. Employees who think the numbers are way off, also hang them up as a message to management. So go get your answers. I hope you can use this new knowledge, as power.

—————————————————————————————————————

Thank you to Bob Papper, for taking the time to explain all of this. He is a professor, and chairs the Department of Journalism, Media Studies, and Public Relations at Hofstra University. He also is a former producer and news manager. Again, he has done this salary survey for 19 years.