Q&A With James Tumusiime: The Future of Newsrooms Lies in Skills, Not Just Stories

Q&A With James Tumusiime: The Future of Newsrooms Lies in Skills, Not Just Stories

In this Q&A, we catch up with seasoned journalist James Tumusiime, who walks us through the various changes that have occurred in the newspaper world over the years. As early as 2016, when no one was talking about it, James published a paper with the Reuters Institute titled “A non-profit approach to market-driven journalism challenges in Uganda: A case study of Uganda Radio Networks”, where he questioned the need for a non-profit approach towards sustaining newsrooms. 

Later in 2018, in an interview with the African Centre for Media Excellence (ACME), James argued that for journalism to move forward, it had to lean more towards the digital side, where production and distribution costs are significantly lower. In his words, he said, “As far as print is concerned, old school newspapers will continue to struggle, but there is a future for quality products with content targeting specialised sectors such as finance, farming or entertainment.”

In this conversation with CMIS Africa’s David Kangye, we trace the origin of this concern and explore how the lack of innovation has impacted the sustainability of newspapers today.  

Q: Are the changes happening in the Ugandan newsroom unique to the country?

A: No, they are not. These changes are largely tech-related and are impacting newsrooms globally.

Q: What were the original major platforms for media?

A: Media initially revolved around two platforms: newspapers and broadcast (radio and television).

Q: When did the Internet become a factor in media?

A: The internet became the fourth central platform when it emerged in the mid-90s.

Q: How did media houses first interact with the internet, and what problem arose?

A: Media houses initially leveraged the internet by creating websites. However, they soon realised that publishing content online could negatively impact their print sales, as people were reading online but not purchasing the physical product. This led to the idea of monetising content online.

Q: What was a significant flaw with the old media model, especially as technology emerged?

A: The flaw was that the cost of printing and distribution was substantial, and the sales, particularly in small markets like Uganda, were not high enough to match those costs.

Q: How small was the newspaper market in Uganda compared to others?

A: It was very small. For example, The Observer at its highest sold only 20,000 copies per print day. In contrast, Kenya’s Daily Nation was selling around 185,000 copies per day, and India’s Times of India was circulating about 8 million copies daily in the early 2000s.

Q: Why didn’t the culture of reading newspapers fully pick up in Uganda?

A: Multiple factors contributed, including the small economy, the timing of the radio’s emergence, language barriers, and poverty levels, where the cost of a newspaper was high.

Q: What unique phenomenon in Uganda demonstrates the demand for newspapers despite affordability issues?

A: The unique phenomenon is that newspapers are often seen as “stepped on” or shared extensively. In offices, one copy makes the rounds, and vendors sometimes “rent” a copy for a small fee (like UGX 500) so readers can quickly read and return it.

Q: Which newspaper remains the best-selling in Uganda?

A: Bukedde remains the best-selling newspaper over the years.

Q: How do newspaper sales in the Western world often differ from those in Uganda?

A: In the Western world, newspaper sales are often based on subscription, where 80-90% of sales happen before the newspaper is produced. In Uganda, roughly 95% of newspaper sales are on the streets.

Q: What is “headline merchandising,” and why is it common with street sales?

A: Headline merchandising is the struggle for editors to come up with the most “catching” or “selling” headline to convince people to buy the paper on the street.

Q: How did traditional media houses keep running despite low copy sales?

A: They practised controlled audiences, where they would subsidise the copy for the reader and “sell the audience” to the advertiser. The advertising revenue would keep the business afloat.

Q: Why can’t media houses rely on that advertising model anymore?

A: Technology has caused the audience to “break free.” People no longer have to wait for the paper; they can start their own blogs or follow content online. Furthermore, big advertisers have shifted to follow the audience on social media channels, meaning media houses no longer control the audience.

Q: How has technology changed the nature of news delivery and consumption?

A: Technology has fundamentally reshaped news delivery and consumption. The most significant shift is the move from waiting for the daily newspaper to living in the age of breaking news, where information is expected instantaneously. This acceleration has also broken the mould of linear, one-way communication. Before, the audience had to wait for the editor’s page to offer feedback; now, there is real-time engagement and response from the audience. Furthermore, the role of the professional journalist is being challenged: news is no longer solely their domain, as anyone with a camera and data can go live. Finally, the content itself has changed dramatically; a story published online is often considered incomplete without a video, which challenges the very definition of a “newspaper” when it’s consumed digitally.

Q: What is one thing you wish you had done earlier in your career?

A: In the early days of the Monitor, as young journalists, we were encouraged to learn skills like graphic design in addition to writing, but we did not do anything with that. In today’s market, you must have more than just writing skills.