A NewsLab survey of 246 working TV journalists found a substantial gap between the importance journalists place on reviewing information before air and the frequency with which this actually happens in their newsrooms.

"It's rather haphazard and inadequate," one person wrote of their review process. "I pray that our 'standard of review' is not replicated often in my profession," wrote another.

The system works best for investigative stories and sweeps pieces. More than nine out of ten respondents said it's extremely important to review these scripts and a similar number said they are always reviewed. But while 94 percent of journalists said it's just as important to review daily news reporter scripts before air, only two-thirds (65%) said that always occurs. Eight of ten respondents said it's also extremely important to review anchor scripts, but only half as many, four in ten, said those scripts are always reviewed. "One of the big problems is that the people who write anchor scripts--the producers--are the same people who check those scripts," one person wrote, "and it is easy for people to miss their own mistakes."

A clear majority (71%) also rated a review of promos as "extremely important," but here too, the newsroom process fell short. Less than half (40%) said a promo review always happens, and a significant number, one in five, said their promos are never or rarely reviewed before air.

"Our biggest pitfall is in promos when stories are just not presented faithfully," one person wrote. "The promo department often creates, prepares and airs promotions without even once consulting the reporter, or his/her supervisor," said another respondent.

Respondents did not place as much importance on the review of graphics, live reports or packages on tape. But they were still more than twice as likely to say that reviewing each of these elements was extremely important, as they were to say that it always happens.

News directors were more likely than their staffs to say that reviews of every kind of material are always conducted, and in almost every case they were much more likely to say so.

For example, about a quarter of the news directors said the content of live reports is always reviewed, compared to just 10% of other journalists. In the case of daily news reporter scripts, three-quarters of the news directors said these are always reviewed, while just over half (53%) of other staff agreed.

And news directors were more than twice as likely as others to say that graphics are always reviewed (29% versus 14%), and three times less likely to say their graphics and live shots are never reviewed (4% versus 15%).

What this suggests is that the system may be broken, and many of those in charge don't know it.

Only three percent of journalists in the smallest markets (151+) felt the same. What's startling is that journalists in markets 11-20 gave their process precisely the same lackluster rating--only three percent said it was excellent.

"Too much news, too few competent people to review," explained one respondent in a top 20 market. "More shows, more live, fewer people=more errors," wrote another. "It's simple math."

Journalists in the largest markets, 1-10, were significantly more likely than those in other markets to say that script reviews were always performed. But the news directors in large markets were less likely to be involved in the reviews than in other markets. Instead, the assistant news director or the managing editor took on that duty. This probably comes down to a larger staff allowing for more dispersal of responsibility.

The survey shows that while local television journalists care deeply about the accuracy of what they broadcast, many of them are working without a backstop. "In an effort to save money, many of the safety nets to catch mistakes and errors have been cut," one respondent wrote. "More than ever, the quality of the newscast depends on the quality of the producer, because there is no one to catch his/her mistakes."

References:

1.This survey was conducted from June 7 to July 4, 2001. Responses were collected online.

2. Amy Mitchell of the Project for Excellence in Journalism analyzed the results. Contact her at asmitch@journalism.org

3. A follow-up study in 2002 by Chris Tuohey of Syracuse University, focused on small market stations, found similar gaps in the script review process.