媒體儲訓－台灣報業的校園記者計畫

Abstract

為開發年輕讀者群、拓展新聞觸角、培養未來人才，中時報系、聯合報系、《自由時報》都開辦「校園記者」計畫。本論文以深度報導方式，探討台灣報業在閱報率下滑、讀者年齡層提高的情況下，所導入的「校園記者」制度。 聯合報系開辦「U種子」計畫已7年、《自由時報》開辦「自由之星」也有4年；中時系統曾有多種接觸校園的策略，但目前僅剩少數、非正式編制的校園記者和「實驗媒體C計畫」。本研究深度訪談前任或現任的校園記者，報社編輯、行政人員等超過60人，發現「U種子」計畫優點在於有資深記者指導，缺點在培育和篩選不足、發稿流程僵化；「自由之星」由前屆學長姐帶領，優點是溝通容易，但也有不夠專業的隱憂；中時的校園策略多半為時不長，多半是「打游擊」形式。 本研究認為，報社單靠「校園記者」要開發年輕讀者，效力難以預估。校園記者一個月的總花費，約可聘用1至2位正職記者；但全部校園記者的見報字數卻遠比不上1位正職記者，只算「報社農場」中的潛力新秀，不是「即戰力」。另外，編輯部對校園記者的指導不夠，表現差的校園記者違背新聞倫理規範，但報社考核不透明，淘汰制度形同虛設。校園記者的前景不見得比一般傳播科系學生寬，他們對報社的信任和對自己的信心常常在等不到錄取或不錄取通知中毀掉。 本研究建議，報社應該思考「校園記者」對報社的意義，在編制上改為精兵政策。由報社主管和前任學長姐共同帶領，盡量在實習之外參與實際新聞作業，並建立快速、彈性的發稿制度，強化專業和倫理教育、提高稿費，將考核透明化。每年校園記者畢業後，依成績、意願、報社需求依序任職，建立真正的「報社農場」。

In the Taiwanese newspaper industry, major newspaper companies, including the China Times, United Daily News Group, and Liberty Times, all offer 'Campus Reporter' programs to develop younger readership, expand reporting range, and train future professionals. This in-depth report intends to profile those programs in a time when Taiwan newspapers find declined readership and a gradual increase of readers` age. United Daily News Group has offered 'U-seed' program for 7 years, and Liberty Times has offered 'Liberty Star' program for 4 years. China Times had undertaken many campus programs, but so far, only a few campus reporters and an 'Experimental Media Plan C' program persist. After in depth interviews with more than 60 former or current campus reporters, newspaper editors, and executives, I found that while the 'U seed' program has an advantage of providing guidance by senior reporters, it lacks sufficient training and screening measures, and its dispatch process may be too rigid. 'Liberty Star' program has a mentor system led by trainees from previous sessions. This allows easy communication between trainers and young campus reporters, but it has also raised concern of lacking professional instruction. The campus reporter programs of China Times are usually short and inconsistent, making young campus reporters feel like “guerilla” reporters. It is difficult to judge whether 'campus reporter' programs could help newspapers reach young readers. The total cost of training campus reporters a month is the equivalent of the monthly salary of 1 to 2 staff reporters. However, the quantity sum of stories published by all campus reporters in a month is much less than the output of a single staff reporter. As a metaphor, campus reporters are reserved forces in a factory, but hardly the real battle power. In addition, the lack of professional instruction does not prevent campus reporters from violating news ethics, and vague evaluation system further hampers any means to eliminate poor performance. As a result, the chances of finding a job in newspapers for campus reporters are not greater than journalism or communication major graduates who did not go through campus reporter programs. Instead, with whole-hearted hopes that the newspaper training may grant them a smooth career path, when jobs are not guaranteed, the somewhat unsuccessful campus reporting experience has only damaged the trust relationship between the campus reporter and the newspaper company, and this may even hurt the self-confidence of young trainees.

This study suggests that newspapers should rethink the objectives of 'campus reporter' programs and reduce the number of campus reporters in order to maintain news quality. Those programs are best lead by senior editors and former fellow campus reporters while giving participants opportunities to involve in actual news operation. The programs also should establish fast, flexible dispatch system and teach young campus reporters about professional skills and ethics. Higher pay, and a valid, transparent evaluation system would also improve training quality. Upon graduation, campus reporters should be given opportunities to join staff force according to their performance and the need of the newspapers, so that a genuine 'factory of human resource' can be established.