"Churnalism"?

Interesting stuff from Nick Davies in the Press Gazette today. He's citing research from Cardiff University's journalism department which suggests that 80% of the copy in newspapers is now recyled pres release and agency fodder:

Looking at newspapers on a case-by-case basis, the study - which looked at 2,000 stories over two weeks last year - found that 69 per cent of home news stories in The Times were wholly or mainly made up of PR and/or wire copy. The proportions for other newspapers were: The Daily Telegraph: 68 per cent; The Daily Mail, 66 per cent; The Independent: 65 per cent and The Guardian: 52 per cent.

The research also claims that less Fleet Street staff journalists are now producing three times as many pages as they did 20 years ago.

Davies also looks at the diary of a regional newspaper reporter - who over a week said they produced 48 stories, worked 45.5 hours and spent just three hours out of the office.

I'm not going to go over Davies' arguments because I haven't seen them yet, but I will say this: the way a lot of newspapers have gone after online is almost certain to lead to this kind of thing. The rush to attract an audience has, in too many cases, been simply equated with the need to produce more copy. Now, it's probably true to say that having a wire news feed on your news site is, on balance, a good thing to have, but this does not mean your journalists are most usefully employed writing (or rather, rewriting) news stories. Less can be more, particularly if your journalists are trained to curate the entirety of your online offering - community, search, incoming links, story updates, pictures, video, the works.