Who should foot the bill?

Posted on July 22, 2007 by Melissa Worden

Angela Grant points out a debate about multimedia equipment in a blog post by SPJ President Christine Tatum. Should journalists or their employers foot the bill for Web resources?

This is an issue that’s bothered me this past year as I hand out equipment recommendations to reporters and photographers (I tell them to ask their editors about reimbursement options). And I’ve been on the “if it’s the company’s time, it should be the company’s equipment” side of the argument. Why should we buy hardware and software to produce content that we don’t own?

I do agree there are some pluses to owning my gear, though. I wouldn’t have to wait in line or deal with a broken device. And there’s an opportunity that with your own (and assumedly better) equipment, you could get better results. Says Tatum: “I hear from far too many reporters who say, ‘They expect fire but give me flint to make it.’ ”

I have heard that in some newsrooms, photographers DO purchase their own still cameras (and maybe video, too). So this concept may be more jarring for reporters.

I fear that journalists in newsrooms that aren’t paying for gear and who can’t or won’t buy it for themselves will fall behind in what’s becoming and going to be essential skill sets. Are they just SOL?

But, egads. Angela’s wish list would cost more that $6,000 for just the camera, computer and software. Then you have to buy the peripherals. That sure would be painful on many pocketbooks. It’s not like journalists are making the big bucks to begin with.

Comments

3 Responses to “Who should foot the bill?”

Emeline on July 23rd, 2007 8:21 am

In what relates to me, I prefer to have my own equipment cause not only I like to possess the things - it is my materialist side (!) - but moreover, the responsibility is smaller. Although I take care of my computer, my camera and so on, I think that one feels less pressure when we appropriate something. And the company should not takes care of our professional purchases - at least not fully.
Angela Grant on July 23rd, 2007 10:06 am

Melissa, exactly! Am I supposed to go into heavy debt to buy stuff to use at work? If so … Could they at least pay me more so I can make my payments?
Patrick Beeson on July 23rd, 2007 10:25 am

I think it would be absurd for a newspaper to require its staff to purchase their own equipment, especially given the journalists’ pay-scale.

If newspapers aren’t willing to invest in their product (information), then they should shutter the windows now.

Hell yes, a lot of video equipment and editing software can be expensive. But if you’re going to put forth an effort in this area, you need the tools to do the job.

As long as training is part of the budget — you can’t give an untrained reporter an HD-level camera and expect Spielberg-quality results — purchasing adequate equipment for online content should be as essential as reporter’s notebooks.

But any equipment purchase should be made with a business plan before the “order” button is clicked. Newspapers can’t afford to leap into video when they don’t even know how that investment will produce revenue.

Newspapers are a business, after all.

Of course if said reporter wanted to do freelance on the side, purchasing their own equipment would make sense. I assume that’s why some photogs would do the same.