By Garfield L. Angus
March 10, 2026
The question of whether editorial management is dying has become an increasingly urgent one in contemporary journalism. Across the world, and certainly within Jamaica’s media landscape there is growing concern that the traditional culture of newsroom leadership is weakening under the weight of technological change, economic pressures, and shifting professional values.
A recent commentary by former President of the Press Association of Jamaica (PAJ), and media executive George Davis, has reignited this debate. Davis argued that many news editors “are not up to the mark, not up to scratch,” criticising editorial managers who fail to ensure that reporters physically attend key events such as Post-Cabinet press briefings, instead allowing them to rely on online streams.
His criticism is not merely about logistics, it is about leadership. Editorial management, at its best, is meant to guide young reporters, instill discipline, cultivate curiosity, and ensure that journalism remains a rigorous craft rather than a convenient routine. Davis’s warning suggests that when editorial leadership becomes weak, complacent, or overly dependent on technology, the quality of journalism inevitably declines. The central question, therefore, is not simply whether editorial management is dying, but whether the principles that once defined strong newsroom leadership are being eroded.
Editorial management has traditionally served as the backbone of any credible newsroom. Editors are responsible not only for shaping content but also for shaping journalists themselves. They determine which stories deserve attention, assign reporters to critical events, mentor inexperienced staff, and ensure that journalistic standards are upheld.
Davis’s argument that young reporters must be placed “in a position where they can interface with power brokers to build their confidence” highlights a crucial function of editorial leadership: professional development. Journalism is a craft that requires exposure. A reporter who attends a press conference in person gains far more than the official statements broadcast online. They observe body language, develop relationships with sources, and often uncover stories that emerge only in informal exchanges before or after the event.
When editors allow reporters to cover such events solely through online transmission, they deny them these opportunities. The result is journalism that becomes passive rather than investigative. Instead of pursuing stories, reporters merely repeat what has already been said.
Technology and the Rise of “Remote Journalism”
The rise of digital technology has undeniably transformed journalism. Online streams, social media feeds, and virtual press briefings have made it possible to cover events without leaving the newsroom, or homes. While these tools can enhance efficiency, they also risk encouraging a culture of convenience.
The temptation for editorial managers to rely on remote coverage is understandable. Media organisations are under severe financial strain. Budgets for travel and field reporting have been reduced in many newsrooms. Sending a reporter to cover an event in person can appear unnecessary when the same event is available online.
However, this convenience comes at a cost. Journalism thrives on presence. Many of the most significant stories emerge not from official statements but from the conversations that occur in hallways, the side remarks made by officials, or the questions asked informally after a briefing ends. These moments cannot be captured through a livestream.
If editorial managers normalise remote coverage as the default rather than the exception, they risk weakening the very essence of reporting. Davis’s critique also raises another uncomfortable issue: the possibility that a culture of laziness may be taking root in some newsrooms. When reporters are encouraged to rely on digital feeds rather than direct engagement, the profession risks losing the investigative energy that once defined it.
Yet it would be simplistic to attribute this entirely to laziness. The reality is more complex. Media organisations around the world are facing unprecedented financial pressures. Declining advertising revenue, shrinking audiences for traditional media, and competition from digital platforms have forced many outlets to cut costs and reduce staff.
The Columbia Journalism Review recently noted that internal conflicts within media organisations are often driven by existential concerns about job security. Journalists fear layoffs, editors struggle with shrinking budgets, and executives face pressure to keep organisations financially viable. In such an environment, decisions that appear to undermine journalistic quality may sometimes be driven by economic necessity rather than complacency.
Nevertheless, financial constraints cannot fully excuse the abandonment of strong editorial leadership. Even in difficult circumstances, editors must remain committed to the principles of rigorous reporting and professional development.
The Power of Initiative in Journalism
Personal experience often provides the clearest illustration of why strong editorial leadership matters. When the late former Deputy Prime Minister of Jamaica, Seymour Mullings died, the assignment initially given to me was a straightforward one: collect tributes from two former prime ministers and the sitting prime minister, and compile them into a feature.
Such an approach would have produced a predictable and largely forgettable story. Instead, I made a decision to pursue a different angle, one that required deeper reporting. Contacts within Mullings’s Parliamentary constituency were reached: a pastor, a principal, a community leader, the Mayor, and a teacher whose education had been supported by the late politician.
From this reporting emerged a powerful human story. A young teacher recalled how she had nearly been unable to sit her Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC) exams because her mother, a domestic worker, could not afford the fees. After stopping Mullings’s car and explaining her situation, she was told to inform her principal that the Member of Parliament had sent her. By the next day, Mullings had already arranged for the exam fees to be paid.
He later visited the school and assured the student that the young woman’s education would not end with CXC, he would also fund her university studies. The feature that resulted, titled “Mr. Mullings Made Me Into a Woman,” became widely circulated in Jamaica and across the Caribbean. It remains one of the most meaningful pieces of journalism produced in my 35-year career.
This story illustrates a fundamental truth about journalism: the most compelling stories rarely emerge from official statements. They come from the lived experiences of ordinary people. But uncovering such stories requires initiative, curiosity, and time, qualities that editorial managers must actively encourage.
The Influence of Editorial Leadership on Young Reporters
Young journalists often take cues from their editors. When newsroom leaders demonstrate curiosity, discipline, and high standards, reporters are more likely to adopt those values. Conversely, when editorial managers prioritise convenience over quality, young reporters may assume that minimal effort is acceptable.
Davis’s observation that “young reporters don’t call the shots” underscores the importance of mentorship. Early-career journalists are still developing their professional instincts. They depend on editors to guide them, to challenge them to pursue better angles, ask harder questions, and seek out voices beyond the official narrative.
If the guide lacks vision or dedication, the consequences extend beyond a single newsroom. An entire generation of journalists may grow up without experiencing the demanding but rewarding culture that once defined the profession.
Newsroom Culture and Staff Dissatisfaction
The Columbia Journalism Review’s observations about newsroom culture further complicate the discussion. Staff dissatisfaction is often rooted in deeper structural problems: job insecurity, declining morale, and strained relationships between journalists and management.
When reporters feel undervalued or insecure about their employment, their motivation may suffer. At the same time, editors operating under constant financial pressure may struggle to provide the mentorship and leadership that journalists need.
Addressing these challenges requires more than criticism. It requires a deliberate effort to rebuild newsroom culture—one that prioritizes both journalistic excellence and the well-being of those who produce it.
Despite these challenges, it would be premature to declare editorial management dead. What may be happening instead is a transformation. The digital era demands new skills from editors: understanding analytics, managing multimedia content, and navigating the rapid pace of online news cycles.
However, these new responsibilities should not replace the fundamental role of editorial leadership. Editors must still mentor reporters, encourage field reporting, and ensure that journalism remains rooted in human stories rather than digital convenience.
In fact, the modern media environment may require stronger editorial leadership than ever before. In an era of misinformation, viral rumors, and algorithm-driven news consumption, experienced editors play a critical role in safeguarding accuracy and credibility.
If editorial management is to survive—and thrive—it must reclaim the spirit that once defined the newsroom. Editors must resist the temptation to treat technology as a substitute for reporting. Instead, they should use digital tools to enhance journalism while maintaining the discipline of field reporting.
They must also invest in mentorship. Young reporters should be encouraged to attend major events, build relationships with sources, and pursue stories beyond the official narrative.
Above all, editorial leaders must remember that journalism is not merely about producing content. It is about uncovering truth, amplifying voices, and telling stories that matter.
The debate sparked by George Davis’s commentary is an important one. While technological change and financial pressures have undoubtedly reshaped the media industry, they should not erode the principles that define strong editorial leadership.
Editorial management is not dying—but it is at risk of losing its purpose if convenience replaces curiosity and efficiency replaces mentorship. The future of journalism depends on editors who are willing to challenge both themselves and their reporters to pursue stories with depth, courage, and humanity.
For journalism to remain a vital force in society, editorial leadership must not retreat into passivity. Instead, it must rise to meet the challenges of the digital age—by reaffirming the timeless values of curiosity, integrity, and fearless reporting.
Garfield L. Angus is a senior journalist based in Jamaica
Email your opinions, letters and commentaries to: letters@caribmagplus.com