This chapter analyses, firstly, the distribution platforms – from print to podcasts – UK journalists produce for; secondly, the media formats – from audio to animation – they produce in; and, thirdly, the media cultural contexts – from newspaper to news agency – they work in. It shows the extent to which journalists work cross-format and cross-platform, which formats and platforms journalists most frequently produce in and for, and how journalists are distributed across employers with different media cultural backgrounds. Initial investigations into some of the implications for journalists’ well-being and their monitorial role of holding those in power to account are also presented.

3.1 A new method to measure the multimedia journalist

The mix of media platforms and formats that journalists might be expected to produce journalism for and in has been increasing intermittently for at least three decades. One important impulse for this increase was the launch of websites by the press and broadcasters from the mid-1990s, opening opportunities for print, radio, and television journalists to write for the web, a specific skill that involved catering to the needs of an audience that, as BBC News Online found, wanted more than ‘simple reversioning’ (Amjadali 1998). Another was the 2007 ‘pivot to video’ made by UK local and national newspaper brands (Thurman and Lupton 2008), which, at the Lancashire Evening Post at least, led to ‘every member of editorial staff’ producing video stories (Smith 2007). A third was how, by 2011, social media had emerged as ‘a powerful’ source of traffic for news sites (Olmstead and Mitchell 2011), resulting in employers looking for reporters who could produce for social media as well as more traditional platforms (see, e.g., Journalism.co.uk 2011). Since then, other platforms, like podcasts, have also become more prominent in the mix.

While the increasingly online-first media environment has compelled legacy news media to ensure their workforces have ‘new’ media skills, the ability to produce for traditional media remains relevant, including in new institutional contexts. Examples of such new institutional contexts include how The Times and Sunday Times newspapers launched Times Radio in 2020, and the digital-native, long-form, global affairs magazine New Lines introduced a print edition two years after launching online (Salem 2022).

In such a convergent media context, analysing how journalists are working across multiple platforms, with multiple media formats, and in institutions with different media cultural backgrounds requires the right data. The survey used (WJS n.d.) in the previous wave of the Worlds of Journalism Study (see Thurman et al. 2016 for the UK results) recorded whether journalists worked for one or more of the following media types: a daily newspaper, a weekly newspaper, a magazine, television, radio, a news agency, a standalone online outlet, and an offline outlet’s online outlet. The data had three main limitations. Firstly, they provided inconsistently precise information about the media formats journalists produced in. Although it could be assumed radio journalists produced audio, and television journalists produced video, did any given newspaper journalist produce text or still images, or both? And those working for a news agency, working online, and/or working for multiple media types could be producing journalism in just one media format or many more.

Secondly, the survey’s data did not provide information on whether journalists were producing for different internet-based distribution platforms, subsuming social media networks, websites, podcasts, news apps, messaging apps, and email newsletters under the single, broad category of ‘online’.

Thirdly, the survey’s data provided only limited information about the media cultures of the institutions for which journalists worked. Although a distinction was made between legacy and digital-native online outlets, if the same type of data had been gathered again by this new survey, it would have remained impossible to distinguish between, for example, a radio journalist working for a station (such as BBC Radio 4) with a broadcast culture and one (such as Times Radio) with a newspaper background.

For these reasons, in the 2023 survey, the UK, along with the other countries participating in the third wave of the Worlds of Journalism Study, introduced three new questions¹ that asked about the distribution platforms – from print to podcasts – journalists produced for, the media formats – from audio to animation – they produced in, and the media cultural background – from newspaper to news agency – of their main employer.

3.2 From print to podcasts: the diversity of distribution platforms UK journalists produce for

Journalists were asked whether, when they produced or edited journalism, or when they supervised its production,² they usually knew in advance on which platforms – from print to podcasts – it would be delivered to the audience. An overwhelming proportion (95%) did, although some were a little less likely to know, for example those whose main employer had a news agency background.

Those who said they did know were asked how frequently they produced journalism for each of nine specific platforms plus ‘other’. On average, journalists produced for over five platforms at least ‘rarely’, with that figure close to three if only platforms that they ‘always’ or ‘often’ produced for were included (see Figure 3.1).

Clearly, the media formats – from audio to animation – supported by different distribution platforms can vary. While journalists working for newspaper brands cannot include audio or animation in their outlets’ print editions, those formats can appear in the brands’ podcasts, websites, or social media feeds. But beyond the media format demands that can be placed on journalists producing for different distribution platforms, the platforms also differ in what they demand stylistically and from a content perspective. For example, even though radio and podcasts are both platforms that carry audio, podcasts are often less formal and ‘talkier’ than radio (McHugh 2016). That journalists were producing for an average of over five platforms – and for nearly three platforms ‘always’ or ‘often’ – shows that many have had to learn the styles, grammars, and logics of several distribution platforms, what Gibbs et al. (2015) refer to as the ‘platform vernacular’.

So, how frequently, if at all, did UK journalists produce for the nine specific distribution platforms? This survey shows that websites were the distribution platform that journalists were most likely to produce for at least rarely (97%), followed by social media (80%), print (74%), email newsletters (62%), podcasts (56%), news apps (53%), radio (39%), television (36%), and messaging apps (32%) (see Figure 3.2). Although excluding journalists who only produced ‘sometimes’ or ‘rarely’ for a distribution platform does not change the ranking much (print moves ahead of social media to second place and podcasts fall below news apps to sixth), it does reveal how production for websites was a core task for a large majority of journalists (83% did it ‘always’ or ‘often’) while production for podcasts (14%), radio (12%), television (11%), and messaging apps (9%) was only a core task for small minorities. Print, social media, email newsletters, and news apps sit somewhere in the middle, with, respectively, 53%, 45%, 35%, and 31% of journalists producing ‘always’ or ‘often’ for these platforms.

Figure 3.1

Figure 3.2

3.2.1 Websites and social media

That websites come top is not a surprise, given the importance of this form of digital distribution to almost all journalism outlets. Social media, at second in the list, is clearly still an important dissemination platform for UK journalists. This is despite evidence that news publishers have been trying to reduce their dependence on social media platforms (Hartley et al. 2023), in part due to changes platforms have made to their algorithms that have reduced referrals to news sites. For example, from December 2023, Facebook reduced the visibility of posts from news outlets for its UK users (Meta 2023a).

3.2.2 Print

Many UK journalists still produced regularly for print. Indeed, a higher proportion did so ‘always’ and ‘often’ than for all other platforms except websites. The print platform’s high ranking may surprise some given the declines in its consumption, as illustrated by how paid-for UK national newspaper circulation fell by more than 60% in the ten years to 2023 (Watson et al. 2023). However, in the UK, ‘print still contributes the majority of revenues for many publishers and remains profitable’ (Watson et al. 2023). This is also the case more widely, with the World Association of Newspapers predicting that, in 2024, 75% of global newspaper revenues would come from print editions (WAN-IFRA 2024). To support the vital revenue the print channel continues to bring to news publishers, three quarters of UK journalists in the sample still produced for it, with over half doing so ‘always’ or ‘often’.

3.2.3 Email newsletters and news apps

That a clear majority of UK journalists produced for email newsletters (62%) shows both the persistence of this relatively old form of digital distribution and how it has become an important tool with which publishers can encourage visitors to regularly consume their content and attract ‘the type of customers that can help with monetisation’ (Newman et al. 2020). Indeed, over half of the publisher respondents to a survey fielded in 56 countries said they planned to produce more email newsletters in 2024 (Newman 2024).

Although most UK journalists said they produced for news apps, much of the journalism that appears on outlets’ news apps also appears on those outlets’ websites. Therefore, news apps should probably be regarded as an extension of websites, or vice versa, rather than as a platform with a distinct vernacular of its own.

3.2.4 Podcasts, radio, and television

That over half of UK journalists produced content for podcast distribution at least ‘rarely’ – more than did so for radio and television – is indicative of the steady rise in popularity of this once disparaged distribution platform. It is true that, despite ‘podcast’ being chosen as the New Oxford American Dictionary’s Word of the Year in 2005 (Bowers 2005), the medium struggled to break through to the masses until the 2014 investigative journalism podcast Serial both boosted and helped highlight podcasts’ popularity (Bottomley 2015). Ten years later, 31% of the UK online population listened to a podcast monthly (Newman et al. 2024). Podcasts’ considerable reach is a reason why nearly half of publishers surveyed were planning to produce more podcasts in 2024 (Newman 2024). In 2023, the Department of Journalism at City St George’s, University of London launched a new MA in Podcasting (Maher 2023) in response to podcasts’ popularity and an apparent shortage of podcast production skills.³

The very existence of this MA in Podcasting elicited expressions of surprise – ‘you can even get an MA in podcasting’ said Shaad D’Souza (2023) in the Guardian – that are not made in response to the existence of degrees in radio and television journalism, despite, as this survey shows, UK journalists being less likely to produce for radio or TV than for podcasts. To distribute via these broadcast platforms requires, of course, relatively high levels of capital investment. This, spectrum limits, and regulatory burdens limit the number of broadcast stations, many of which have limited news output anyhow. It is, therefore, not a surprise that relatively few (11–12%) UK journalists in the sample ‘always’ or ‘often’ produced for these two broadcast platforms.

3.2.5 Messaging apps

Messaging apps have been used as a peer-to-peer news distribution platform for over a decade. By 2014, 2% of UK internet users were using WhatsApp to consume or discuss news on a weekly basis (RISJ 2014), a figure that had risen to 10% by 2024 (Newman et al. 2024). However, such apps have been hard for news organisations to publish on. WhatsApp introduced the ability to ‘broadcast’ messages in 2013, but only to groups of 256 people. The launch of WhatsApp ‘Communities’ in 2022 increased that number, but only to 2,000 (Ponsford 2023). However, the launch of WhatsApp ‘Channels’ – which enables publishers to send text, photos, and videos to unlimited numbers of users – turned the app into a viable mass distribution platform. The feature was launched globally in September 2023, two weeks before this survey started (Meta 2023b). Given WhatsApp’s short history as a viable mass distribution platform, it is perhaps surprising that as many as 32% of UK journalists said they produced journalism for messaging apps, although with only 9% doing so ‘always’ or ‘often’, an MA in Instant Messaging still looks some way off.

3.3 From audio to animation: the mix of media formats UK journalists produce in

Journalists were asked how frequently they produced, edited, or supervised the production of journalism⁴ in six media formats (text; photographs; audio; video; graphics, cartoons, illustrations, or animation; and multimedia stories that use a combination of the formats) plus ‘other’. On average, journalists produced in around four formats at least ‘rarely’, with that figure just over two if only formats that they ‘always’ or ‘often’ produced in were included (see Figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3

Text was the media format that journalists were most likely to produce in (95%, at least rarely); followed by multimedia stories (79%); photographs (77%); video (69%); audio (67%); and graphics, cartoons, illustrations, or animation (50%). Excluding journalists who just produced ‘sometimes’ or ‘rarely’ in a media format reveals how the production of text is a core task for a high majority of journalists (86% did it ‘always’ or ‘often’) while the other formats are only a core task for smaller proportions: 13% for graphics, 20% for video, 21% for audio, 36% for multimedia stories, and 39% for photographs (see Figure 3.4).

Figure 3.4

The centrality of text to a large majority of UK journalists’ production routines is striking. Of course, text is normally a required element when producing journalism for websites, social media, print, email newsletters, and news and messaging apps. And journalism whose final form is video or audio is often scripted, with the writing of text an essential intermediate stage. The frequency with which UK journalists produced text is also indicative of the audience demand for the format. When it comes to online news, the Reuters Institute Digital News Reports have shown that ‘most audiences still prefer text because of its flexibility and control’ (Newman et al. 2024).

Overall, most journalists at least ‘sometimes’ produced journalism in photographic form, with journalists whose main employer had a magazine, newspaper, or internet-native background most likely to do so. Even a quarter of journalists whose main employer had a radio background ‘often’ or ‘always’ produced photos. Although the majority of UK journalists did produce video and audio, working with these other audiovisual formats more than rarely was the preserve of minorities, most likely to be employed by news outlets with a television, radio, or internet-native background.

More than 18 years on from Rupert Murdoch’s (2005) accusation that newspaper publishers had been ‘slow to react’ to how ‘the emphasis online is shifting from text only to text with video’, this survey found that barely 10% of journalists employed by newspapers were producing videos ‘often’ or ‘always’. Of course, as Murdoch suggested in his speech, newspapers can acquire video from third parties rather than producing it in-house; and short-form news videos are increasingly automated (Thurman et al. 2024b), reducing the human resources required. Nevertheless, with, in 2024, only 9% of the UK online population watching short online news videos on a daily basis (Newman et al. 2024.), a lower level of audience demand than Murdoch and others anticipated is also likely to be part of the explanation for why the average UK newspaper journalist did not often produce video.

3.4 From newspaper to news agency: the media cultural contexts in which UK journalists work

Journalists were asked about the media cultural background – from newspaper to news agency – of their main employer (see Figure 3.5). Excluding the 18% who either did not know or did not have one main employer, for 30% their main employer had a magazine background; for 26%, newspaper; for 16%, internet-native; for 11%, TV; for 7%, news agency; and also for 7%, radio. Just 0.1% of journalists had a main employer with a telecommunications background.

Figure 3.5

So, the vast majority – 84% – of UK journalists had a main employer from a legacy media background. The institutional affiliation of UK journalists is similar to those of their audiences: in 2024, of the 16 online news brands with the highest weekly reach in the UK, all bar three – MSN News, GB News, and Yahoo! News – were from legacy newspapers or broadcasters (Newman et al. 2024). Although two digital-native news brands, Buzzfeed News and HuffPost, were in the top 16 in 2020 (Newman et al. 2020), after they subsequently shuttered their UK news operations (Bland 2021; Sweney 2020), their popularity plummeted.

Despite some progress being made by UK national and local newspaper brands in offsetting the ‘relentless print decline’ with digital growth, ‘the challenge of the print-to-digital transition has not faded … amidst the oncoming cliff-edge for print’ (Enders et al. 2024; McCabe et al. 2023).⁵ Furthermore, the incomes of the public service broadcasters behind the news brands ranked first, second, and fourth in terms of weekly offline reach (Newman et al. 2024) to UK audiences – BBC News, ITV News, and Channel 4 News – are under pressure. In the BBC’s case, from a freeze in the licence fee and uncertainty about the fee’s future; and for ITV and Channel 4, increased competition from digital-native streaming services.⁶

Given that, as this survey shows, legacy media institutions employ the vast majority of UK journalists, the uncertainty around those institutions’ future funding is clearly of concern. What will it mean for the jobs of journalists and their output when the cliff-edge for print is reached and if funding for public service broadcasters continues to fall in real terms?

By 2023, UK advertising spend with internet-native search and social platforms was more than ten times higher than the spend with all national and regional newspapers, magazines, and radio stations – including their online editions – combined (Ponsford 2024b). This shift in resource allocation has not been accompanied by a commensurate shift in funding the employment of UK journalists. Although internet-native media are generating employment in the UK, they are not a significant employer in an industry – journalism – whose workers play a key democratic role as, in part, evidenced by how a majority believe in the importance of providing accurate information and analysis, and in holding politicians and business to account (see Chapter 9 in this report).

3.5 Do journalists’ media modalities matter?

This chapter has presented new data that describe the mix of media platforms and formats UK journalists produced for and in and how journalists were distributed across employers with different media cultural backgrounds in 2023. There is, of course, much more that can be explored using these data.⁷ Three feasible foci for further research are suggested below, along with some initial findings.

Firstly, as this chapter shows, media convergence has led to UK journalists producing in an average of nearly five media formats and for an average of over five distribution platforms. Does such multi-tasking take a toll on their emotional and mental well-being? This survey’s data suggest that the more media formats journalists produce in – at least sometimes – the higher their concerns about their emotional and mental well-being (see Figure 3.6). This association is very weak but statistically significant. The data also suggest that the more media platforms journalists produce for – at least ‘sometimes’ – the greater their concerns about their emotional and mental well-being (see Figure 3.7). This association is also very weak but statistically significant. Chapter 6 provides more detailed information on UK journalists’ perceptions of their physical and mental well-being.

Figure 3.6

Figure 3.7

Secondly, given the prevalence of online hate speech – one study found 3.9% of comments under news articles at theguardian.com were hateful (Zannettou et al. 2020) – do journalists producing journalism for online platforms have more demeaning or hateful speech directed their way? This survey’s data suggest that the more frequently journalists produce for social media platforms the more frequently they report having demeaning or hateful speech directed at them (see Figure 3.8). This association is, again, very weak but statistically significant. Further information on UK journalists’ experiences of a range of threats and harassment, including hateful speech, is contained in Chapter 6.

Using data from the last wave of the Worlds of Journalism Study survey, Henkel et al. (2020) found that ‘online journalists are more likely than their offline colleagues to find justification for publishing unverified information and less interested in holding politicians to account’. Because the 2023 survey’s data can distinguish between journalists producing for different distribution channels and in different content formats and working for employers with different media cultural backgrounds, another idea for further research would be to build on Henkel et al.’s work and analyse associations between, on the one hand, media channel, content, and culture and on the other, the roles journalists hold to be important and their ethical orientations. This survey’s data suggest that journalists whose main employer has an internet-native background give significantly less importance to monitoring and scrutinising those in power than journalists whose main employer has a newspaper, radio, or television background (see Figure 3.9). For more on the importance journalists give to various professional roles, including monitoring and scrutinising those in power, see Chapter 9.

Figure 3.8

Figure 3.9

3.6 Conclusions

This chapter has shown why, in an era of media convergence, it is necessary to be able to distinguish between journalists who produce for different distribution platforms and in different media formats and who work for institutions with different media cultural backgrounds. To be able to make such distinctions, a novel set of three questions was developed. This chapter’s analysis of the data from those questions shows the average UK journalist produced for multiple distribution platforms and in multiple media formats. Although such multi-tasking may add variety to journalists’ routines, this survey’s data suggest that juggling too many platforms and formats may have a small negative impact on mental well-being. The frequencies with which journalists produced for particular distribution platforms show the centrality of news websites, the persistence of print and social media platforms, and how podcasts and email newsletters have gone mainstream. Furthermore, the frequencies with which journalists produced in specific media formats, also evident in the data, demonstrate the primacy of text and the importance of photographs. Producing for the other audiovisual formats more than rarely was the preserve of minorities, most likely to be employed by news outlets with a television, radio, or internet-native background. Finally, our finding that 84% of UK journalists had a main employer from a legacy media background raises questions about the continuity of the profession when the cliff-edge for print is reached and if revenue for broadcasters continues to fall in real terms. The indication in the data of differences in the importance journalists at legacy⁸ and internet-native news outlets give to monitoring and scrutinising those in power shows that continuity is not just about maintaining the number of journalists employed, it is also about preserving their
sense of purpose.

Footnotes