This is particularly necessary, given that if South Africa follows UK and European trends, more and more permanent newsroom staff will not only become contractors but will also be working from home. The virtual newsroom concept is becoming more and more important to media owners wishing to save on space and overheads. It is based on the premise that with modern technology being what it is, there is no need for a journalist to spend hours in traffic going to the office when things can be done just as well and a lot more economically from home.
Quite simply, what print media owners need to change is their system of paying by the word. It has been around for ages and for some it is an unchangeable paradigm. But, it frankly doesn't make any sense.
Take a freelance journalist trying to produce quality copy and being commissioned by an editor to write 1000 words for which he or she will get, say, R2.50.
The hack happily goes about producing the 1000 words but then somewhere along the line, usually because of space problems, those 1000 words might be cut down.
Often it's only by 100 words or so but on occasion it can be cut down by half. All of which means that for the 1000 words produced, the hapless hack only gets paid for 500.
This is as stupid as someone buying a car and, before paying for it, telling the dealer to take out the radio, air conditioner and navigation system then expecting to pay less.
This is not about being fair to journalists. It is all about ensuring quality copy. Because, when a freelancer sweats his or her butt off producing good quality content and then ends up having half or even a third of it hacked back, it is hugely demotivating. When they only end up getting paid half of what they expected, it is even more demotivating.
What good management is all about is motivating staff to perform to the best of their ability. Screwing freelancers with this archaic system is simply shooting oneself in the foot.
The most remarkable thing is that when copy is cut back to fit and then paid for by the now-depleted word count, this is generally not because media owners are trying to save costs. It is largely just because it is the system. A bureaucratic system that hasn't been overhauled for ages and which is in dire need of just that.
If newspapers and magazines are genuinely trying to get the best freelancers or contractors possible, then they need to ensure that they keep them. Good journalists - or, let's face it they're all content providers these days - are becoming harder and harder to find, what with an increase is magazine titles and a burgeoning online publishing industry that devours content as though there was no tomorrow.
The simple solution is to pay per project or to put regular contributors on a set monthly fee. A lot of media houses are already doing this and it works perfectly.
It's also not a bad idea for freelancers and contractors to stop just bitching among themselves about hard done by they are and sit down with their editors and come to some sort of equitable payment arrangement.
Good editors and publishers will always be happy to talk turkey. Only bad journalists should be wary of digging their heels in. They have very little leverage and quite rightly so.
Journalists need to realise that if they don't stand up for what they are worth and be prepared to walk away rather than accept peanuts, they will always be paid peanuts. The reason this archaic payment system is being perpetuated is jointly because media owners and journalists are allowing it to. And it's harming them both.
