Study completed in the fall of 2008

for the academic year 2007-2008

Technican staff is almost evenly split male/female.	The class breakdown of the Technician staff is now much more even. It was dominated by upperclassmen two years ago.	The Technician staff is still not reflective of the racial diversity of the campus, but it’s getting better.

Methodology | Significant Findings | Findings

METHODOLOGY

In October of 2008, students selected random issues of the Technician printed within the last 12 months. Using Analysis sheets, they determined the number of sources in a story and cataloged the sources as indicated. University data was obtained for the fall of 2008 through the University’s Department of Planning and Analysis.

• F2008 — 1,478 sources analyzed
• F2007 — 2,971 sources analyzed
• F2006 — 2,970 sources analyzed
• F2005 — 1,147 sources analyzed

Methodology | Significant Findings | Findings

SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS

There is some GOOD STUFF happening at the Technician.

• The percentage of sources from CALS continues to increase.
• The gender breakdown of the staff is close to 50/50.
• The classification of the sources reflects the campus more than in past years.
• The racial diversity of our sources almost mirrors the campus.

Making such changes in three years is impressive, and, definitely, it’s much harder now for people to argue that the content of the paper doesn’t reflect the campus. It does. The staff leaders should be congratulated for their efforts in the areas noted.

There are a few notable areas for IMPROVEMENT as well.

• Sources still do not reflect the college breakdown of campus with engineering and CALS students still being underreported significantly.
• There is still little racial diversity on staff.
• The gender breakdown of our sources is still predominantly male.
• We still need to use more underclassmen as sources.
• The vast majority of the staff (6 out of 10) reports no prior experience in journalism before coming to work for a daily newspaper. Recruiting in the high schools will help.

Methodology | Significant Findings | Findings

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPERIENCE

• 60.3% of the staff members said they had no experience in journalism prior to coming to work for the Technician
• 27% of the staff members said they worked on their high school newspaper before coming to work for the Technician
• 42.9% of the staff said they had been on staff less than one semester
• 19% of the staff said they had been on the staff more than three semesters

ELECTION STATISTICS

Because it was an election year, we had an opportunity to compare the staff to the campus. The staff continued to lean more “liberal” than the campus.

Staff: 58.7% for Obama

Campus: 52.9% for Obama

Staff: 58.5% Democrat

Campus: 51.4% Democrat

RACE

1. Reporters’ use of Caucasian sources largely mirrors the campus population but has increased slightly in the last year.
2. Reporters’ use of black sources jumped up a percentage point, and reflects coverage of blacks at nearly twice teh percentage of the population.
3. Use of sources of other races generally mirrors the campus population.
4. In 28 percent of sources, race could not be determined either through a photograph or identifying characteristics in the story. This means that for a signficiant number of our stories, race plays no factor in the selection of sources.
5. 90 percent of the staff is Caucasian.

Recommendations:

• We need to recruit a more racially diverse staff. The percentage of Caucasians on staff has increased.
• Reporters continue to use a wide variety of sources.

76.4 percent of the staff was Caucasian. 12.7 percent, Asian; 6.3 percent black; and 6.3 percent Hispanic.

GENDER

1. Reporters’ use of male sources (62%) exceeds the population (55% male), significantly more than last year. This is a reversal of a trend we’d been seeing over the past four years. By section, the numbers are about the same (+/- 1%) as last year.

• News stories: 65% male
• Opinion: 58% male
• Sports: 62% male

49.2 percent of the staff is male, a significant decrease from last year’s 52 percent.

Recommendation:

• Reporters need to use more female sources.

CLASSIFICATION

1. The number of “staff” as sources remained high for the second year, reaching an all-time high and close to one out of every four sources.
2. Juniors topped seniors as the highest percentage of underclassmen quoted for the first time.
3. The class diversity of the staff reflects the campus much better than last year.

Recommendations:

• Reporters need to use more students as sources.
• Reporters need to avoid using CNN.COM, the News & Observer and other media as “sources.”
• Reporters need to use more faculty and less staff as sources. The student body president, Jon Barnwell and Tom Stafford remain over-quoted.

Sophomores represent the largest percentage of the staff, 30.2 percent. Seniors represent 22.2 percent.

COLLEGE

1. The College of Humanities and Social Sciences was significantly over-represented for the fourth consecutive year. CHASS students were used as sources at a rate now-quite double their population on campus and at a rate higher than we’ve seen in four years.
2. Students in the College of Engineering were under-represented in the paper as were students in agriculture and life sciences (CALS).
3. Although all sources are supposed to be identified by name, classification and major, the college could be determined for only 50 percent of the sources, significantly lower than in past years.

Recommendation:

• Reporters need to use students in CHASS less as sources.
• Reporters need to use engineering and CALS students more as sources.
• Writers/editors need to include name, classification and major for all sources.

36.5 percent of the staff is in CHASS. The next largest college represented on staff is engineering, with 22.2 percent, followed by Design with 11.1 percent.

Selected staff comments on how to improve coverage of CALS and Engineering.

• It would help to have more studnets writing from these colleges, those with a vested interest in what is going on. Also, our news staff has what seems to be an inefficient beat and budget system, likely due to a lack of writers. A solid writer on the PAMS and CALS beat would be the best solution to this problem.
• Have a beat writer to follow these schools. Be more aware of recent and upcoming events and milestones for these colleges.
• Go to the actual buildings where most of those students are for interviews.
• The problem with covering these colleges is a matter of a “typical” approach to finding angles for news or opinion. Sure, a feature story with an eye-catching design on some of the achievements or recent studies from these colleges is fairly easy to plan and execute, but it’s a very narrow approach to these fields. Our coverage should shift to emphasizing student organizations within these colleges and showing the other side of the college — e.g., placing them within the broader scheme of University politics or tying a field of study to the daily events on campus as covered by existing news. Keeping writers on a beat system to encourage regular contacts and establish rapport with these colleges is definitely a step in the right direction.
• The colleges need to do a better job of communicating with the newspaper perhaps a weekly phone call to the college publicity contacts asking them what’s going on would work. Also, try to make friends with the top administrative assistant at the college so that they know there’s always an open line. Most importantly: MAKE SURE YOU FOLLOW THROUGH WITH A FACTUALLY ACCURATE REPORT. Nothing discourages the colleges to reaching out to the Technician more than a story full of misinformation and straight up twisted or wrong quotes…they don’t want to deal with student media if the paper is more trouble than it’s worth
• Increase the number of these students on the news staff. Advertise more to this group.
• Sections focused on science and technology running more often. More viewpoints about these subjects with professor interviews. Also a section on innovative design could showcase genetically modified plants, green architecture, string theory breakthroughs, etc.
• We could recruit more staff members from those specific colleges. They could then interview people from their classes and etc.
• Coverage of these colleges could be improved in the features section. There are a ton of cool student organizations in engineering that compete with schools around the nation such as the ASCE and the ASME.
• Having specific writers focused on those colleges.

SOURCES

The average number of sources per story was 2.41. This is significantly lower than previous years. In news/feature stories, the average number of sources was 2.73. In sports stories, the average number of sources was 2.74.

• 2004-2005 — 3.00
• 2005-2006 — 3.29
• 2006-2007 — 3.01
• 2007-2008 — 2.41

Recommendation:

Reporters need to continue using at least three sources per story.

Table 1
RACE	Population F08	Percent Population	Sources 08	Percent 08	Percent 07	Percent 06	Percent 05	Percent 04
Caucasian	24,279	73.90%	832	76.2%	75.9%	79.3%	78.50%	74%
Black	2,809	8.50%	163	14.9%	13.9%	12.8%	15.20%	19%
Native American	165	0.50%	13	1.2%	1.5%	0.7%	0.90%	1%
Asian	1,509	4.60%	50	4.6%	5.0%	3.1%	3.20%	2%
Hispanic	790	2.40%	30	2.7%	1.7%	2.4%	2.20%	1%
International	2,448	7.40%		0.0%	0.0%	1.8%	0%	0%
Other			4	0.4%	2.0%	2.2%	0.70%	2%
Total	32,872	100%	1,092	100.0%	100.0%	102.0%	100.70%	100%
Table 2
GENDER	Population F08	Percent Population	Sources 08	Percent 08	Percent 07	Percent 06	Percent 05	Percent 04
Male	18,334	55.80%	882	61.8%	61.1%	62.0%	63.70%	69%
Female	14,528	44.20%	545	38.2%	38.9%	38.0%	36.20%	31%
Total	32,872	100%	1,427	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100%	100%
Table 3
CLASSIFICATION	Population F08	Percent Population	Sources 08	Percent 08	Percent 07	Percent 06	Percent 05	Percent 04
Freshman	5,770	23%	179	15.14%	13.1%	9.0%	7.90%	11.00%
Sophomore	5,121	21%	173	14.64%	14.9%	11.0%	11.20%	8.20%
Junior	5,332	22%	243	20.56%	18.6%	16.0%	18.50%	11.00%
Senior	6,204	25%	228	19.29%	23.9%	17.0%	25.20%	17.80%
Other	2,314	9%	8	0.68%	0.7%	1.0%	0.60%	2.10%
Total	24,741	100%	831	70.30%	62.1%	54.0%	63.40%	48%
Graduate	6,931		30	2.54%	3.1%	4.0%	3.20%	0.00%
Teaching faculty	?		51	4.31%	3.4%	3.0%	2.50%	2.10%
Staff	?		270	22.84%	22.4%	15.0%	15.80%	19.90%
Can’t determine			296			13.0%	15.00%	28.10%
Total			1,182	100.00%	100.0%
Table 4
COLLEGE	Population F08	Percent Population	Sources 08	Percent 08	Percent 07	Percent 06	Percent 05
CALS	5,197	15.8%	103	13.9%	12.5%	10.6%	11.9%
Design	736	2.2%	31	4.2%	2.8%	3.5%	3.3%
Education	1,791	5.5%	26	3.5%	4.6%	4.8%	3.0%
Engineering	8,151	24.8%	154	20.8%	22.6%	19.6%	18.9%
Natural Resources	1,363	4.2%	34	4.6%	3.7%	4.4%	5.1%
CHASS	4,741	14.5%	238	32.2%	26.4%	27.4%	32.6%
PAMS	1,592	4.9%	37	5.0%	7.0%	7.6%	7.4%
Textiles	1,043	3.2%	16	2.2%	4.1%	3.2%	2.3%
Veterinary Medicine	398	1.2%	8	1.1%	0.9%	0.6%	0.5%
Management	3,109	9.5%	82	11.1%	10.8%	12.9%	11.7%
Lifelong Education	2,755	8.4%		0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Undergraduate	1,531	4.7%		0.0%	3.5%	4.4%	2.8%
Ag Institute	395	1.2%		0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Graduate		0.0%	11	1.5%	1.0%	1.2%	0.5%
Total	32,802	100%	740	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100%

Methodology | Significant Findings | Findings