Telegraph.co.uk is experimenting with a new 'post-moderated system' for journalists' content in a bid to reduce production costs
This article was migrated from an old version of our website in 2025. As a result, it might have some low-quality images or non-functioning links - if there's any issues you'd like to see fixed, get in touch with us at info@journalism.co.uk.
There used to be something here that couldn't be migrated - please contact us at info@journalism.co.uk if you'd like to see this updated! The Telegraph is experimenting with a post-moderated sub-editing system online, its assistant editor told an industry gathering last night.
The trial, aimed at reducing production costs for the publisher, is part of the 'bleak future' faced by print sub-editors, said Justin Williams, assistant editor of Telegraph Media Group, at the New Media Knowledge (NMK) 'What happens to newspapers?' event .
Speaking to Journalism.co.uk, Williams said the system, which would allow journalists to publish directly to Telegraph.co.uk before their content is moderated, was being used in only a few content areas online.
Its aim, he added, is to improve the efficiency of the writing and production process by establishing what line and format a piece of content will take at the point of commissioning.
Such systems are being trialled in response to an industry-wide need to reduce production costs, Williams told the audience. 60 per cent of TMG's publishing budget is spent on the means of production, while 40 per cent is used for content-generation, he added.
"The cost of publishing has now fallen to zero and that's ultimately what we're struggling with. We have to get to a point where our journalists deliver their content to whoever wants to get it and it has to cost us nothing to do that if we are to survive," he said.
"What does that mean for sub-editors? I would not become a sub-editor now. The future for sub-editing is bleak, there may still be a future, but we have to drive down costs."
Tim Gopsill, fellow panellist and editor of the National Union of Journalists' (NUJ) magazine, The Journalist , raised concerns that such changes could reduce the quality of online newspaper content.
"Once you remove the process of refining material to meet your brand, you're not having a process of quality control at all," said Gopsill.
While Williams said he agreed that quality of content was important, driving down production costs should be a 'commerical priority' for publishers.
"We're talking about the survival of the brands in themselves and that's the commercial priority as an industry: our very survival. It's all well having pieces read over and over again checked by many people, but at the end of the day those businesses will go under," he said.
Despite the possibility of sub-editor job cuts, Williams said there will be new employment opportunities in 'content generation' for journalists and data practitioners.
"We're going to need lots of people to help us move in areas that we are already in and into new areas, to create content in imaginative new ways. But it [the future] will not be about the interminable multi-staged editing process," he said.
