On the one hand, I can see where it would be a good thing for people to get things they know intimately.
On the other, I don't want to get stuck with the bill.
On yet another, I don't want the company getting stuck with the gadget geek's fantasy bill (though that would likely be me).
On even another, I don't want some noob buying crap that can't do the job and wasting money.
On still another, I don't want a reporter buying cool stuff and quitting to start myoldpapersucks.com with equipment the paper bought.
Maybe this: a standard rig, which reporters can deviate from with approval, partially or wholly paid for by the company, to become employee property after a set time period. Which doesn't even touch on departmental purchases. Isn't it a good thing I'm not in management?

You didn't suggest that they use the equipment for their employer.

You sugested that people who are in multimedia would own them.

I think that's quite correct. It's not the company's responsibility to develop their careers; nor is it the employee's responsibility to provide their own work equipment.

Thanks, Pierce and Jack, for piping up. Both of you have identified problems with going either route.

There are also tech-security issues to consider ... And questions about whether a news organization's IT staff should be expected to help when something goes wrong with MY machine (I think not unless the issue appears to have been created by work-related software). Then there are questions about "standards" and administrative chains of command.

The tech conversation is, methinks, largely wrapped up in a much bigger philosophical discussion. I want to do great journalism, and I will not settle for tools that make that difficult. But we're certainly not talking about pads and pens here. The right tech can be expensive (side note: I'm careful about itemizing and taking appropriate tax write-offs).

The company might want to issue standard laptops -- or provide nothing at all -- but if it in any way is holding me back, I'm either going to (as Jack essentially put it) assume personal responsibility for my career development or look for somewhere else to work. I am not going to wait around for a news organization to provide everything for me because I know THAT'S not going to happen. It'd be great -- but I'm also typing right now on a desktop loaded with Windows Professional 2000 and other software programs in need of an upgrade.

I'm getting increasingly cranky about the whole topic of technology and journalism because (thanks to my SPJ travels to many newsrooms) I have seen just how little money news organizations have wanted to spend on decent equipment -- and at a time when digital communications are so important. I hear from far too many reporters who say, "They expect fire but give me flint to make it."

If I have the means and want my own stuff for the purposes of doing great work, you'd think a news organization would ROLL OVER to help me plug into its networks.  

I have just purchased, and my editor is going to follow suit, a laptop to use at work, primarily because of one very important reason: we're tired of waiting for upgrades to our nearly decade old Macs. The only thing we're trying to figure out now is how to make our network talk with my Windows Vista laptop.

I'm also going to be covering a major trial in the next few months. There's no way I could do that in this day and age with pen and reporter's notebook.

So, it was either be (pardon my language) screwed, or spend the money.

I spent the money. We'll see what happens.

I think the network issues will work out for you just fine, Martin -- and I would be soooo grateful if you kept me updated about how you make that happen (please drop me a line at ctatum@spj.org).  It might take a little time, and it might take a little patience -- but it's certainly possible to build networks that accommdoate both Windows and Macs (especially Macs running Parallels or Bootcamp ...).

And for it's worth, I'm VERY impressed by a couple of the collaborative features in Vista. I just checked out Microsoft's Global Partners Conference, which ended yesterday in Denver. While there, I received a demo of collaborative software called "Groove." Wow! It is a very cool tool that, among other things, allows people to trade ideas, chat (in near real-time), edit group projects without trading massive files (and thus gumming up e-mail inboxes and causing mass confusion because people don't know who did what last to which document ...) and provides a place where people can upload useful information that would be beneficial to a team. Groove complements Microsoft's "SharePoint" tech, so, together, I could imagine these two packing quite a punch.

A colleague and I viewed this demonstration and could see easily how this tool would work wonders in our newsroom ...

"They expect fire but give me flint to make it."

That sums up exactly what I often hear. This is a tough topic. To stay on top as journalists we need new and working equipment. The two laptops our company has don't work often, and the newsroom cell phones are old and cannot be relied on. The company provides paper and pens, as well as nice desktops, but as far as Web content or traveling equipment we're on our own. This seems to be a common predicament.

While I don't think a company should foot the bill for everything a journalist decides to buy, I do think the company should provide a few staples to be shared among those who need them, such as working and wireless laptops, partially paying for a cell phone that's used on the job, microphones and video/camera/audio equipment for Web content.

But journalists will certainly be able to do more impressive work if they buy their own tools. There are tax write-offs for such items, and each person will have their own preference as far as Mac vs. PC, size, programs and such.

I think it's easier if the journalist buys the equipment and learns the programs, and then uses the tax write-off.

But in an ideal world, the company would provide the tools to create the cutting-edge material expected of us.

Thanks for sharing, Elysse!

I have had even more conversations about this mess through e-mail with journalists who tell me they're too shy -- or worried about what their managers will think -- to post. Here's even more interesting insight I have gleaned from reporters across the country this week:

1. One journalist told me his newspaper (circ. 50,000) is still working with some crazy version of Windows from the '90s! "You can forget about having a wireless network in here," he said.

That paper's owner should be ashamed.

If I could wave a magic wand, all reporters would be given laptop computers with wireless access. NO MORE desktop machines. In my world, reporters could take their laptops pretty much anywhere. HOWEVER, I would insist on some guidelines regarding the machine's use. For example, a reporter who damages or loses the computer might find his or her wages garnished until a proper reimbursement to the news organization is made ...

But obviously, I don't run the world.

2. Not only are journalists hamstrung by hardware, they're absolutely struggling with terrible -- and I do mean terrible -- Web-production tools.

"Even when we have something to put on the Web site, it takes forever to do it," another journalist wrote. "Only a few people in the newsroom even know how. I'm looking for a way out of this place because I can do more sophisticated work on the Web if I'm at home."

This issue of poor production tools I do know a thing or two about -- and my eyes have been opened even wider during my SPJ presidential term. I have visited plenty of newsrooms of all sizes nationwide, and I consistently have found some of the clunkiest Web-production tools known to man in them.

Once again, I can't help but shake my head in amazement over this sorry state of affairs. How, I used to wonder, could this crud have been foisted on a newsroom for so long without someone doing something to change it? My observations and conversations boil down to a couple of answers:

A. Ego. Someone invested in bad tech and couldn't admit it. Good money was thrown at the bad tech to make repairs and find work-arounds instead of just admitting mistakes and starting over.

B. Lack of understanding at the top. Senior managers haven't always been so clued in to what it takes to post content to their news organization's Web site. When you're not the one who has to follow 27 steps just before rubbing a rabbit's foot, crossing your fingers and kissing a dried four-leaf clover as you feverishly hope your story or picture shows up online, well, you're just not likely to feel the same pain.

PingBack from http://web.aan.org/how_good_is_your_newsroom_tech/

PingBack from http://newsvideographer.com/2007/07/22/for-my-stuff-lots-of-out-of-pocket/

PingBack from http://www.melissaworden.com/blogs/xdegree/2007/07/who-should-foot-the-bill/

I too think that the employer should buy the equipment. However, the reality is they can't or won't.

I recently purchased on my own the Canon XH A1-OUCH a big expense. But, I consider it an investment in my future. I know I need to learn video and learn it now. I know if I wait for them it may never happen. I'm just not willing to let that happen.

What I think will happen is this, the "show me don't tell me" method. Once they start seeing videos they will want more and it will be easier to justify the equipment in the capital budget.

I am also hoping they will share the cost with me. I bought the camera now will you buy me the expensive software sort of thing.

Then, in a year when I'm ready to move on to a larger more web savvy paper, I will be ready and the paper I leave will be a little better equipped when I take my personal gear with me.

Thanks for the thoughts, Jodi.

As I expected, journalists are really all over the map on this one.

The bottom line with me is increasingly becoming this: If someone wants to own his or her stuff, get out of the way and let him or her purchase and use it. Craft policies that help journalists do their jobs with the right tools -- and ensure that expectations are comensurate with the tools being used.

I don't buy all the protests that go something like this:
"Nooooo! If journalists BUY their own stuff, then management will come to expect that of them!" That's really silly. It is in this day and age, indeed, akin to a news organization that refuses to buy pads and pens.

I also have a hard time with the absolute "if-they-want-me-to-use-it-they'll-buy-it" mentality. For years, I've heard colleagues bellyache similarly about all sorts of workshops and seminars. ("If they want me to go to that educational event, they'll give me paid time off or pay my way.") Please. I'd love to see more people assume a little more personal responsibility for their professional development than that.

If news organizations refuse to buy tech, then that's a sign of REALLY big trouble. I'd be scrambling to buy my own stuff so that I could do some decent work with it, shore up my portfolio and land somewhere else.

Just an observation -- Newsrooms provide desktop computers as standard issue right? Why are all other gadgets different?

But the reality is -- newsroom budgets and priorities are behind the times. My observation -- some editors and publishers don't understand how laptop computers, mobile phones, audio recorders and digital cameras empower reporters if they are properly selected, purchased, maintained and used.

If newsrooms ever want to compete with real time news, they need J-gear.

((I agree with previous posts -- the problem starts with the IT network. Some newsroom networks need a serious, top-to-bottom upgrade. I know a few reporters who do database work, deep internet searches or the like at home because their work computer or work network would collapse.))

Reporters who buy and use their own J-gear often show editors, publishers and other reporters how powerful these tools are. But when editors agree with us they can't get management to open their pocket books.

I will skip the horror stories. You've heard them too.

For now, it's a financial burden early adopters have to endure. And one more thing holding the industry back.

Christine, regarding your comment:
"If news organizations refuse to buy tech, then that's a sign of REALLY big trouble. I'd be scrambling to buy my own stuff so that I could do some decent work with it, shore up my portfolio and land somewhere else."

If we all try to "land somewhere else," we'll all try to get hired at the handful of newspapers actually doing this. I don't think there are enough Wired newsrooms to hire us all. This is a nationwide knowledge gap. We can help our existing newsrooms upgrade or we can start newsrooms that use technology. We need to spread the tech revolution and help our peers. Not abandon them -- if at all possible.

I waited more than a year for a laptop computer so I could do my radio reports from out in the field.
Prior to that I was using an ancient computer from the 80's with dialup modem and I had to feed my stories via a landline with immense static. I just had to keep pestering them and finally they got me a laptop. But I had to install my own software.. ridiculous.
The truth of the matter is that my boss has no clue .. literally .. of technology and tries to cover it up by acting like we don't need anything new. They still use reel to reel!

Both points here are easy to see, but whatever a newsroom chooses--either providing journalists with equipment or asking them to provide their own--the newsroom heads need to be held accountable, and should have rules in place for both situations. Yes, it would be nice for newsrooms to provide equipment to anyone that needed it, but they should survey the staff before purchasing new software, equipment, etc. to make sure the staff is getting precisely what it needs. The folks in charge should also provide at least an annual status report of that technology... as in, send an email that says, "Hi staff, I know using Windows 98 is getting old, and we're budgeting for a January 2008 upgrade." On the flip side, if reporters are asked to buy their own equipment, employers must instill a company culture that ensures that personal equipment in the workplace is protected. I know I'm not the only one who's had numerous coworkers ask to borrow personal equipment they couldn't afford on their own...then had it returned in less-than-perfect condition.

I don't know if times in broadcasting are just so bad that companies haven't the money to do anything, or if bean counters are just looking for ways to squeeze more profit out of daily operations.
But gear, everywhere, just seems not to be what it used to be.
I've had so much trouble with IFB (air audio) systems in recent years I'd probably buy one of my own if it were at all practical.  And a wireless lav mic for all the times the one in the truck just wasn't working, and I needed one so I could have hands free to turn pages while reading v/o.   I know an older reporter who carries his own soft focus filter so he (and the company) will look better on the air.  He’s thinking about it, even if the company is not.  Smart personal investment.  Make up?  Many TV companies gave up the make up artist long ago, and no longer even offer make up consulting for the field.   That’s an investment you may just have to make.  I hated it.  (Yes, I surely need it, but always find it difficult to be out in the real world with a TV world face).

I freelance as a reporter for a highly respected major local TV news operation in a major market.  It doesn't provide a cell phone (to freelancers) but I'd rather use my own, anyway.  Nor a laptop (I have a couple of great ones rigged the way I like) nor even a press pass (who needs one)?  I'd love to have one of those nifty blackberries, but don't really need one.  I can get email AND access to the internet quickly enough with my laptop with a $60 a month Verizon broadband wireless data connection.  That and my cell phone run up my bill quite a bit.  Except for the expense, I'd rather do it on my own, anyway.  When I'm working on other projects, I've got the gear. No worries about calling who I want, when I want; or whether it's an assignment related call.  (I remember two news directors asking us to check the cell phone bills regularly and pay for calls that weren't assignment related.  Kind of makes you want your own phone anyway).  
I expect to write off my gear against taxable income as business expenses, but that's getting more and more difficult for reporters or camera folks who aren't set up as independent contractors.
 
When I worked for a TV news company that trained everyone as VJ's, the company provided decent cameras and laptops and editing programs  along with top notch training.  I could not have afforded that (nor is it likely that I would have even tried) on my own.  When it comes to skills like shooting, editing, and internet file protocols for transmitting video, good skills and gear are a must.  Even with the quality gear and training, it took months on the job doing daily news assignments (with all the screw-ups) to work out the kinks and get the system working and be somewhat competitive in a market with other companies not using VJs.  I doubt any company could expect reliable performance and competent skills from crews without investing significantly in time and money with training and gear.

Over the years, many of the camera folks I have worked with, both freelance and staff,  have often supplemented their own gear.  I've always been impressed with their sense of doing things right that compels them to spend plenty for such things as their own lights, and mics and silks and reflectors; even personal lenses.  (What is is about those big wide angle lenses that camerafolks seem to love)?  If High Definition makes marketing sense to the other stuff TV companies do, then you’d think they’d have respect for the look of video they get in the field.  It's their product, for crying out loud.  You’d think someone would want it to sparkle.

So, for one's personal sense of doing it well and right, it's worth investing in yourself with good gear, if no one else will.  In fact, it may be a necessity.  

I'm a freelancer who just moved on to a new job running a small community paper. [well, actually I was pretty much the entire staff] The digital camera they supplied me with was a dinky little point-and-click [I had a better one at the time], a office-level computer that they expected me to wield graphics software on [yep, it crashed at least twice a day!] and crammed me into a tiny [one-person] office with another person and whole bunch of gear. But they also gave me a BlackBerry and sent me on some expensive trips on assignment...

I ended up purchasing a Canon Digital Rebel, a Sony digital recorder with lavalier, my own Palm Pilot and some other techie goodies [I'm also freelancing on the side so it was all deductible] for my own use. The good thing was, when I left I took my gear with me. The bad thing, I had to leave the BlackBerry [those things are _really_ handy] so I just bought myself a Motolora Q smartphone with yes, a digital camera [don't really like the resolution] and video capability [ditto]. [again, phone and monthly charges all deductible, since the new job doesn't pay for anything--but I did get a nearly 30 percent raise and much nicer working conditions so it all works out]

[No, I don't have a laptop yet, I'm resisting getting one as the cruddy keyboard placement tends to give me carpal tunnel--but if I ever do get one, I'll be sure to spring for the infrared keyboard so I don't have to put up with torturing my wrists just to reach the stupid keyboard.]

I think the moral to my story is, get your own gear. You'll get what you want and you can take it with you when you go.

I also recommend asking the employer to help you maintain the gear-after all, they didn't have to buy it, and they're more likely to help you spring for a sensor cleaning or batteries for the recorders or other expenses than buy a $2,000 digital camera.

Let's put it another way--I'd much rather my employer pay for decent health insurance and buy my own gear than have a company digital and crappy insurance. But that's just me...

I really appreciate all the comments.

I'd love to know more about the gadgets some of you are using in the field to make life easier. That information is very helpful to so many people. For exampe, I have never worked with a Treo -- but Todd Stauffer, publisher of the Jackson Free Press, recently said that the Treo 650 is a great device:

"With its ability to accept SD cards, the Treo can record hours of interviews (including phone calls), produce Web-quality photos and video, plus the other obvious stuff — contacts, ToDo lists, etc. Depending on the user’s desire to thumb-key in data, the Treo can also be used for e-mail, Word docs, Excel, etc."

Stauffer also is looking forward to the upcoming release of Palm's "Foleo."

As for my comments about how I'd jump ship if I were working for a news organization that refused to buy proper technology for its staff:

I'm certainly happy to help my peers -- but I'm also not inclined to work for an outfit that doesn't respect good journalism enough to invest in the proper tools needed to do it these days. Refusing to stick in a newsroom that doesn't get the importance of all of this is not abandonment so much as it is protection of the quality of my work.

Some of the tech shortcomings and utter failures in newsrooms may be a matter of ignorance at the top -- but I don't have the time or patience to deal with it. It's 2007. This writing was on the wall in 1997, and the degree to which many senior managers refused to read it is shocking.

I personally would rather buy my own personal laptop (which I did) and my own cell phone. But since we don't have wireless at my workplace, I can't use it here. The computer I have on my desk is seriously from 1997. Remember when monitors took up the whole desktop? Yeah, that's what I have. It is slow and old. I would appreciate it if my company invested in some nice equipment for me at work. That's all I'm asking!

I have been supplied with a Nikon CoolPix 5.0 megapixel camera by my company to use in the field. So often I want to chunk this camera in a garbage can because unless I am directly in front of a person's face, the camera does not focus. Getting an action picture is an even bigger joke. I can't take GREAT pictures with what I was given, and I have personally been thinking about buying my own digital camera so I found this blog to be quite interesting!

Having owned a CoolPix, I can say that it's a great, little camera -- but it is, indeed, not something you're going to be able to use for decent action photograhy.

I used my CoolPix for mug shots and close-ups that would help me once I got back to the office to write a story. (I once took close-ups of the construction defects I observed at a person's home. When the editor asked if what I had written was, indeed, the case, I whipped out my digi-pics and said, "Here, you be the judge." He couldn't have agreed more with my assessment -- and I was grateful for having had the images to serve as a back-up.)

As noted in my original post above, I'm a big fan of my Canon PowerShot -- although if Canon champions that ridiculous NFL rule requiring photographers to wear league-issued, red vests bearing corporate logos (such as Canon's), I'm going to look at other companies for my next purchase. But hey, that's just me.  

You cannot wait for your newsroom to save you!! I know it sucks, but we have to buy our own gear if you want to learn and grow.

If I were in the situation that the newsroom wouldn't update, I would buy my own stuff and beg/plead the editors to allow us to put up things as simple as a weekly podcast and story-appropriate Soundslides presentations. Once you get the simple things in, then you can work up to something bigger like videos and flash presentations.

It was the issue I faced in my last newsroom, where I wanted to start doing a podcast and using the audio recordings I had been taking for nearly every story I write. A year after I (and a couple other people) started asking about using new technology, the newsroom adapted, and now they have a weekly podcast. Yes, it will take a while. But if you show initiative and persistence you can improve the paper's Web presence.

Thanks for sharing, Kate. Just curious: How did you handle the push-back from editors and colleagues? Or did you receive any? Are there any specific examples you could share? Just wondering because I think it would be great if people picked up more tips on how to sell the use of tech in newsrooms. I find that people with little command of the technology often feel threatened by it.

In March 2006 I recorded my interviews on an Olympus WS-100 as I researched on a difficult political series. I wanted to have audio backups in case my sources said I misquoted them. I bought the MS-100 because of the USB port attachment.

I started talking with the new Web editor and our special projects editor about including podcasts and other multimedia. It was a mutual enthusiasm to get podcasts going. I planted the seed with the ME about how my such-and-such a project would lend itself to a podcast, or a slide show, or a video project.

Then I had an interview with our congresswoman in our newsroom. The ME, GM and city editor were there, when I whipped out my MS-100. We did the interview, then as we walked out, the GM asked what the device was. I showed him all the features, explained how it plugs into the computer and told him how easy it would be to get interviews on the Web.

Apparently he was impressed, because the management started talking about starting podcasts (this was in late 2006) and buying recorders for the reporters. I would not be surprised if the ME made sure the GM was there during the interview because she knew I had the recorder and he might be interested. But he controlled the budget, and I think the interview was key to showing him why it would be an asset to the paper.

The paper started weekly podcasts in early March 2007. Initially the reporters were really skeptical and did not seem to want to get involved. A couple of them complained about all of the extra work involved (ie. writing a broadcast script, sending the clips to the Web editor, marking the times on the good sound bites, reading the script). But now I think more of the reporters want to do it, and the weekly podcast is getting better every time.

(If you're from my former paper feel free to chime in. This is only my recollection of events)