The editor of the newspaper makes a series of assumptions in arriving at the conclusions that the paper had improved in quality and readership. They owe the improvement directly to the hiring of older and more experienced journalists without adequately justifying it. The editor also goes on to conclude without further confirmation that the less experienced reporters did not contribute to the improvement and that they would not also do so in the future.
The first assumption the editor makes is in the metrics used to judge the paper. It is not clear that the survey of the subscribers three years ago was a statistically accurate one. The question is whether it had chosen the right sampling of people. Further the complaints of the quality of the reporting and writing could have been specific to a few people. Did the survey ask everyone specifically about the quality or were they comments by a few? These are important to answer so as to bring accuracy to the results of the survey. The editor uses a subsequent rating on reporting and writing and the growth in subscriber base is evidence that the quality has improved. Again, elaborating on the statistical method used to obtain these ratings would convince the managing editor that the metrics are to begin with reliable.
Secondly, the editor goes on to assume that the older and more experienced journalists were the direct cause for the higher ratings. For example, if the ratings had improved even without hiring of older and more experienced journalists, it would indicate that most of the improvement could have been as a result of the existing younger reporters improving speedily on their reporting skills and trying harder. Providing more evidence of this direct correlation between the hiring of more experienced people and objectively comparing the quality of their writing and reporting those of the younger people after the three years would have helped in strengthening the assumption.
Thirdly, the editor assumes that the subscriber base growth of 13% was directly attributable to the quality of reporting and writing. Suppose the subscriber base had grown even without improvement in quality, it could have indicated a growth in the local population. It may have indicated movement of subscribers from a competing newspaper or an improvement in the marketing of the paper. Hence, it is important that the editor isolates the specific reasons for the growth in order to convince the managing editor that the growth was directly correlated to the improvement in quality.
And finally, the editor makes the assumption that the younger, less experienced reporters did not contribute and more importantly will not contribute in future to the quality and growth of the paper. For all we know, they could be learning rapidly on their own or from their more experienced colleagues and could be extremely capable contributors in the future of the paper. An objective evaluation of the work of the young reporters and comparison of the same to their work three years prior would have helped lend support to the conclusion that they needed to be fired.
In conclusion, the editor of the local newspaper could have provided more information and rationalization for relying on the metrics, to the rather drastic conclusion that the less experienced reporters needed to be fired and that the more experienced journalists were the direct reason for the improvement in readership and quality.
The editor of the newspaper
makes
a series of assumptions in arriving at the
conclusions
that the paper had
improved
in
quality
and readership. They owe the
improvement
directly
to the hiring of older and more
experienced
journalists
without
adequately
justifying it. The editor
also
goes on
to conclude
without
further
confirmation that the less
experienced
reporters
did not contribute to the
improvement
and that they would not
also
do
so
in the future.
The
first
assumption the editor
makes
is in the metrics
used
to judge the paper. It is not
clear
that the survey of the
subscribers
three years ago was a
statistically
accurate one. The question is whether it had chosen the right sampling of
people
.
Further
the complaints of the
quality
of the
reporting
and
writing
could have been specific to a few
people
. Did the survey ask everyone
specifically
about the
quality
or were they
comments
by a few? These are
important
to answer
so as to
bring accuracy to the results of the survey. The editor
uses
a subsequent
rating
on
reporting
and
writing
and the
growth
in
subscriber
base is evidence that the
quality
has
improved
. Again, elaborating on the statistical method
used
to obtain these
ratings
would convince the managing editor that the metrics are to
begin
with reliable.
Secondly
, the editor goes on to assume that the older and more
experienced
journalists
were the direct cause for the higher
ratings
.
For example
, if the
ratings
had
improved
even without hiring of older and more
experienced
journalists
, it would indicate that most of the
improvement
could have been
as a result
of the existing younger
reporters
improving
speedily
on their
reporting
skills
and trying harder. Providing more evidence of this direct correlation between the hiring of more
experienced
people
and
objectively
comparing the
quality
of their
writing
and
reporting
those of the younger
people
after the three years would have
helped
in strengthening the assumption.
Thirdly
, the editor assumes that the
subscriber
base
growth
of 13% was
directly
attributable to the
quality
of
reporting
and
writing
. Suppose the
subscriber
base had grown even without
improvement
in
quality
, it could have indicated a
growth
in the local population. It may have indicated movement of
subscribers
from a competing newspaper or an
improvement
in the marketing of the paper.
Hence
, it is
important
that the editor isolates the specific reasons for the
growth
in order to convince the managing editor that the
growth
was
directly
correlated to the
improvement
in quality.
And
finally
, the editor
makes
the assumption that the younger, less
experienced
reporters
did not contribute and more
importantly
will not contribute in future to the
quality
and
growth
of the paper. For all we know, they could be learning
rapidly
on their
own
or from their more
experienced
colleagues and could be
extremely
capable contributors in the future of the paper. An objective evaluation of the work of the young
reporters
and comparison of the same to their work three years prior would have
helped
lend support to the
conclusion
that they needed to
be fired
.
In
conclusion
, the editor of the local newspaper could have provided more information and rationalization for relying on the metrics, to the
rather
drastic
conclusion
that the less
experienced
reporters
needed to
be fired
and that the more
experienced
journalists
were the direct reason for the
improvement
in readership and
quality
.