1. Introduction

Portugal is one of the countries where people trust the news the most. The Digital News Report Portugal 2022 (^{Cardoso et al., 2022}) points out that 61% of the Portuguese say they trust the news, the highest figure in Southern Europe and the second highest in the whole of Europe, only behind Finland. The most trusted brand is public television, RTP. In addition, the Portuguese believe that the news in Portugal is not too polarised - in other words, that the media do not tend to exaggerate the differences between political parties and groups. Portugal has the lowest perceived polarisation score in the world, along with Singapore. These figures reveal a country where the relationship of trust between the media and their audiences has not yet eroded, contrary to the trend in other European countries and North America. It is also a country where the majority of people still consume information from television every week - 63% of people watch news on RTP, SIC or TVI at least once a week, according to the same report.

Given the considerable demand for television information and the still encouragingly high levels of public trust in the media, there is interest in studying the quality of journalism produced on Portuguese television, along with radio journalism, as a possible point of comparison to understand how widespread the perceptions in question are.

Over the last few decades, different techniques and approaches have been used to measure and assess the quality of journalism. Experts have proposed a variety of angles from which to study this subject, and these range from content analysis using different methods (^{Martins & Palacios, 2016}; ^{Palacios, 2011}), to the study of the conditions that exist in media companies for the production of good journalism (^{Picard, 2000}), as well as definitions and measures linked to the social and democratic role of journalism (^{McQuail & Deuze, 2020}). Research into the quality of journalism in Portugal is still in its infancy, which indicates a need to understand better how Portuguese journalists and audiences define quality journalism and what assessments they make of it.

The issue of quality has also become particularly pressing at a time of financial crisis within journalism, which has led to a reduction in the number of newspapers and journalists in newsrooms. As journalists (^{Gómez Mompart et al., 2015}) and institutions (^{Esteves, 2020}) and academics (^{Meyer, 2009}; ^{Silva, 2020}) point out, quality journalism cannot be achieved without investment - whether in human resources or in technological and technical resources.

As such, given the deteriorating financial conditions of media companies in Portugal, how do Portuguese journalists assess the quality of journalism practised in Portugal and the conditions in which they themselves have to carry out “good journalism”? This article aims to answer two research questions: (a) how do television and radio journalists define quality journalism; and (b) how do television and radio journalists assess the quality of journalism produced in Portugal?

To this end, this article begins by presenting some theoretical guidelines concerning the study of the quality of journalism and journalists’ perceptions of quality. It then offers a few points to contextualise the evolution of the professional profile of the Portuguese journalistic class, the financial situation of media companies and the present-day working situation of journalists in Portugal. It then presents the methodology utilised in this study, namely semi-structured interviews conducted with 11 radio and television journalists in Portugal. Finally, it provides a contextualised analysis of the results of the study.

2. Theoretical Framework

3. Methodology and Research Questions

This research proposes to explore the issues of journalism quality from the perspective of those who produce it, thus seeking to answer the two research questions mentioned above: (a) how do television and radio journalists define quality journalism; and (b) how do television and radio journalists assess the quality of journalism produced in Portugal? On the one hand, this research seeks to discover what criteria journalists use to define “a good piece” for television or radio, including the particular characteristics that these media require, and to know what conditions are necessary to produce such a “good piece”. Furthermore, it seeks to learn how these journalists see journalistic production in Portugal in relation to the criteria they themselves establish, including their own work and the conditions under which they actually practise their profession. A path is thus traced between the normative perspectives of what journalism should be and the descriptive perspectives of what journalism actually is.

As a first approach to the issues of journalism quality among information producers in Portugal, it was opted to carry out semi-structured interviews, a qualitative methodology, despite the fact that international articles on this subject often use surveys as their main method, such as ^{Gladney (1996}) or ^{Gómez Mompart et al. (2015}). Instead, like ^{Jenkins and Nielsen (2020}), the semi-structured interview was chosen. This does not rule out the possibility of later on using the knowledge gathered in this process to carry out a broader survey.

The interview script used, with slight variations, as is natural in the case of semistructured interviews, consisted of six questions, divided into two blocks. The first explored the characteristics that the journalist attributes to quality journalism, their definition of “good journalism” and the ideal conditions needed to produce this. The second was focused on assessing the quality of television or radio journalism in Portugal, depending on the interviewee’s area of work, and assessing their own working conditions in relation to the ideals they described.

“Interviews are essential when you need/want to map the practices, beliefs, values and classification systems of specific, rather well-defined social universes, where conflicts and contradictions are not clearly explained”, explains ^{Duarte (2004}, p. 215). The semi-structured interview allows the interviewee to articulate specific concerns and needs and the interviewer to better explore topics about which they may still have insufficient knowledge (^{Williamson, 2018}).

A total of 11 interviews were carried out between 21 March and 6 April 2023. Five of the journalists interviewed worked for television channels: SIC (1), RTP (2) and CNN Portugal (2); and six worked for radio news programmes: Antena 1 (3), TSF (2) and Renascença (1). The journalists interviewed had been working for between three and 22 years. Most of the interviews were conducted via Zoom, three of them by telephone and one in person. The interviews lasted between 12 and 53 minutes, with the total number of interviews recorded totalling 3 hours and 48 minutes. One of the interviews was not recorded due to a technical error, and its analysis relies on the notes taken during the conversation, so there will be no direct quotes from it.

The journalists’ answers were anonymised so as not to identify the name of the interviewee nor the media outlet where they work. The interviewees were informed of this anonymisation at the beginning of the interview process. This decision was made especially because of the questions in the second block of the interview, one of which is: “do you think you have the conditions to practise journalism with the quality you would like to achieve?”. Due to the limited size of newsrooms in Portugal, it is felt that the identity of the journalists interviewed would be decipherable if their means of communication were associated with their years of career or their answers, and therefore, in order not to restrict the criticisms they might wish to make, this information will not be associated with each other.

The interviewees were initially chosen for convenience - four of the journalists were personal contacts - and, later, through snowballing or chain referencing, in which the initial interviewees referred to colleagues in the same and other media organisations. In an attempt to include journalists from all the national news media in the fields of television and radio, an attempt was made to contact journalists from CMTV and Rádio Observador. However, within the timeframe set for this article, no response was received from these journalists such that interviews could be carried out, better to complement this work.

By the ninth, 10th and 11th interviews, the answers began to provide no new information in relation to those previously recorded, thereby reaching a point of theoretical saturation (^{Thiry-Cherques, 2009}), so it was decided to cease data collection and start analysing it.

The interview responses were organised in a table for qualitative analysis, considering individual perspectives, in the words of each interviewee, and collective views. This approach revealed convergences, divergences, and patterns in various viewpoints.

4. Results and Discussion of Findings

The 11 journalists interviewed for this research work showed varying assessments of the quality of journalism practised in Portugal, but common opinions on what a “quality” piece of journalism is. Asked about “the essential characteristics of quality journalism”, the interviewees were divided between deontological or public service aspects and formal characteristics. Six of the journalists mentioned accuracy and impartiality, and two of those specifically mentioned respect for the profession’s deontological rules, showing a connection to the journalistic ethos that goes back to the times when their colleagues worked under the dictatorship (^{Correia & Baptista, 2007}). Four journalists spoke of the importance of diversifying sources. In contrast, five of the interviewees spoke of more formal characteristics of journalistic work, such as the “quality of the writing”, with the ability to “grab” the listener or viewer, clear and explanatory language and an original and interesting approach. These formal characteristics also appear in the literature as priorities for journalists, as was the case in ^{Gladney’s (1996}) work.

As regards the specific characteristics of quality television and radio journalism, almost all interviewees mentioned the quality of the image and sound, as would be expected, but other points were also raised. One of the radio journalists who was interviewed mentioned how, due to the limited length of news programmes, radio has to be able to “go to the heart of the matter” more than television, making it more difficult for this medium to fall into the dynamics of infotainment (Journalist 2). One of the radio journalists (Journalist 6) refers to the importance of using sound to verify the facts that are presented, including testimonies and other sounds in addition to the journalist’s narration. A television journalist (Journalist 11) pointed out that it is essential to “scrutinise videos and other amateur content” shown on television, and gave the example of the earthquake in Turkey in February 2023, following which images were broadcast on television that were circulating on social media, some of them not associated with the event in question and with wrong dates or locations (^{Almeida, 2023}).

With regard to the conditions necessary for a journalist to be able to practise good journalism, two themes were generally mentioned, namely time to work and good working conditions, especially remuneration. Seven out of 11 interviewees spoke about the importance of time: “time is the first condition” (Journalist 1); “first and foremost, time, the scarcest resource in journalism” (Journalist 8); “the team should be large enough so that there are no time pressures” (Journalist 4); “above all, time: we have to do everything for yesterday and deadlines make it difficult to get to know all sides of the news” (Journalist 11). As ^{Picard (2000}) points out, when wishing to use the time spent on tasks to measure the quality of journalism, journalists justify the need for time for various reasons: listening to different sources, undertaking investigations and reports, and reviewing and verifying facts. Two cases (Journalist 4 and Journalist 8) identified the reason for the lack of time, which was the scarcity of human resources, which makes it difficult to free up a journalist to work on a story instead of contributing to current affairs on a daily basis. In another case, the pressure from the competition and the need not to fall behind other channels or radio stations were emphasised. The pressures of time and competition (which are, after all, interlinked in the need to be there first and get “the scoop”) may have already been present in the 1990s, as ^{Correia (1997}) wrote, but they have worsened with digitalisation and are highlighted in more contemporary literature on the quality of journalism, such as among those interviewed by ^{Jenkins and Nielsen (2020}). In six cases, journalists spoke of the obstacle to journalistic quality, that is, the precariousness of the profession. Professional stability, as two of the interviewees said, is important not only because of the good working conditions it provides for journalists, but also because it is reflected in the work they do. On the one hand, a journalist with a precarious labour situation is “less free”, that is, more susceptible to pressure on their work and may fear “reprisals”. Furthermore, only in good conditions can journalists “have other experiences and interact with the world” outside the newsroom (Journalist 4), where they will find stories and topics that they would not otherwise come into contact with. One of the journalists spoke about the importance of good pay “in order to be motivated and attract good professionals” (Journalist 9). “Journalism is increasingly a precarious profession and this affects the quality of the journalism that a person does” (Journalist 7). These testimonies are not surprising, partly because they are represented, albeit through the prism of press freedom rather than quality, in ^{Lopes (2015}), and partly because they are, in fact, concerns that run through the history of journalism in Portugal, as was seen above in ^{Correia (1997}). In this case, however, the association between the quality of journalistic work and job insecurity is directly made by the interviewees.

Six of the interviewees also mentioned the help of editors and managers, who support the journalist’s independent work and help develop ideas and stories, as being an essential condition. The ideal managers are described by journalists as those who give journalists the freedom (and also the oft-mentioned time) to work and who have “the vision to coordinate” (Journalist 1).

Other conditions mentioned by journalists include the journalist’s own preparation for the work they are going to do, their ability and opportunity to specialise in certain topics, good teamwork with technicians and editors, technological resources such as quality recorders and cameras and financial resources for travel, and freedom and security in regards to the political pressures and interests or from other sources.

When asked about the quality of television journalism in Portugal, the five television journalists interviewed had very different views. One journalist stated that, compared to “other countries” such as Spain and Italy, Portugal has good quality television journalism because in Portugal news programmes are the most watched television products, which “forces us to be more careful because there are a lot of people following them” (Journalist 10). This journalist spoke of a generalised concern to show well-filmed images and to have recorded testimonies in the pieces, something he does not see in the foreign news programmes he knows.

The rest of the television journalists, to varying degrees, are dissatisfied with the quality of television journalism. One of them rates it “6.5 out of 10”, noting only that “sometimes innovation is lacking a bit” (Journalist 9), regarding news programmes, with channels repeating the same topics. He was not the only one: another interviewee also said that “there are some very good products, but there is room to innovate more” (Journalist 11), given that work is done on the basis of audiences, especially private channels. Another journalist made a stronger criticism: “we have a lot of bad television journalism” (Journalist 7), pointing to CMTV as the main culprit, including for the spread of bad journalism to other channels, stating: “CMTV has lowered the standards”. CMTV is, after all, the ratings leader in Portugal ^{(“CMTV Líder na Informação com Melhor Resultado de Sempre em 2022”, 2023}). “There is journalism that is very well done, but there are also poor approaches which shame journalism”, Journalist 7 added. Another journalist (Journalist 4), from another channel, made the same criticism: “people strive very much for quality and do the best they can”, she began, before criticising sensationalism: “everyone tries to see what CMTV is doing and then chases after that”.

What about radio? Here too, the criticisms on the lack of innovation persist: “we lack diversity, we all do the same thing” (Journalist 5), identifying the same problem as two of the television journalists. Another journalist mentioned the lack of innovation in the field of storytelling, for example in audio reporting (Journalist 6). Two of the interviewees, however, stated that the quality is “except on rare occasions, very poor” (Journalist 1), partly due to the time constraints on the journalist’s work. “There isn’t as much time and resources available to do what could be really good”, affirmed Journalist 8, although going on to say that in the newsroom where she works “accuracy isn’t lacking”. Even the journalist (Journalist 3) who stated that “yes, without a doubt”, radio journalism in Portugal is of good quality, then added the reservation that newsrooms that have been depleted by redundancies and have fewer journalists than before have had the quality of their journalism affected. They mention that, nonetheless, people are hard-working and want to maintain quality despite the lack of staff.

The findings, aligning with a prior survey by ^{Gómez Mompart et al. (2015}), displayed a more positive outlook. For instance, only half of Gómez Mompart et al.’s surveyed journalists believed their media outlets provided sufficient relevant information. This variance might be attributed to the nuanced expression of opinions enabled by interviews, potentially leading to less critical perspectives than the survey results. Television journalists were also asked which television channel was their favourite. Three mentioned SIC, although only one interviewee belonged to SIC, one mentioned RTP and another said “none”. The radio journalists were evenly split between their favourite radio station being Antena 1 or TSF.

Finally, the last question in the script asked the interviewees: “do you think you have the conditions necessary to practise journalism with the quality you would like to achieve?”. The answers can be divided into those who said “yes” and those who said “no”.

Faced with this question, six of the interviewees initially stated they had the necessary conditions to practise good journalism. When highlighting the positive points, two journalists (Journalist 7 and Journalist 2) mentioned that there is “no pressure or constraint” on their work. Only one emphasised his personal characteristics, such as good academic training (Journalist 3), training which, as was noted above, has become much more specialised for most members of the profession in this century. “I think I have the conditions needed, the freedom to do the pieces the way I want” (Journalist 11), stated one of the television journalists.

However, even among those who initially asserted that they had the essential conditions for their work, all but one had some reservations after the initial affirmation. “Frustrating” wage stagnation (Journalist 2), limited budgets for reporting and small teams were highlighted. Therefore, although six of the interviewees initially stated they had the conditions necessary to practise the “good journalism” they would like, five of them pointed out that these conditions could be better - mainly due to the economic constraints within media companies, which limit the size of teams and investment in work, or due to their own working situation.

Five journalists answered “no” to the last question in this script, stating that they did not feel they have the necessary conditions to practise good quality journalism. Three of the interviewees once again mentioned unfavourable pay and working conditions. “There is a general limitation that affects your way of being, which is the salary situation,” said one of the interviewees (Journalist 10). Another journalist (Journalist 4) stated that pay conditions in her newsroom had not been updated for four years. One journalist (Journalist 3) even spoke of an “incentive to leave” in his media outlet, leading many journalists to leave in the last eight years, which has discouraged and hindered the development of work.

Three journalists also spoke about the lack of human resources. One of the interviewees, a radio journalist (Journalist 6), mentioned the lack of journalists with whom to discuss ideas and brainstorm stories, as well as producers and technicians. Another interviewee (Journalist 8) stated that because there is “a lack of people in the newsroom to free up journalists for reporting”, she did not have as much time to work on topics as she would like. A third went as far to say: “I wish my media outlet had more resources so I didn’t have to do 17 different jobs” (Journalist 4).

As a result, of the 11 journalists interviewed, only one (Journalist 7) unreservedly claimed to have the conditions she would like in order to carry out quality journalism.

5. Conclusions

The results of these interviews provide a contribution to the study of the quality of journalism in Portugal, by focusing on journalists’ perspectives concerning the essential characteristics of quality journalism, their assessment of the state of journalism in Portugal and the existing conditions for its practice. The perspectives represented are in line with the international studies presented in the literature review, from the Spanish journalists who responded to the survey by ^{Gómez Mompart et al. (2015}), who blame the lack of quality in journalism mostly on the lack of investment by news companies, which creates poor conditions for production, to what is generally reported from that survey to the interviews by ^{Jenkins and Nielsen (2020}) on the difficulty of producing quality content with the speed that is required and in the time that is provided to do so.

This indicates that there are cross-cutting international challenges regarding the quality of journalism, including the lack of investment or funding for newsrooms, the resulting reduction in human resources, and the lack of time to devote to journalistic work, which is partly the result of this loss of labour, and partly driven by competitive dynamics and the speed of the digital medium.

However, it is also important to emphasise that these problems are not just presentday ones. Let us consider the following reflection by ^{Crespo, Azevedo, and Cardoso (2017}) as an example:

while in 2017 the conditions under which the profession is exercised are much questioned, it is important to realise how similar the issues raised by Paquete de Oliveira in 1994 are to this: “The conditions under which the profession is exercised are interdependent with those that mark the economic, political and social situation of press companies in particular and the press in general within the context of the country” (Oliveira, 1994, p. 82). (p. 51)

Although the interviewees are not unanimous in their assessment of the quality of television and radio journalism in Portugal (even the most positive ones had criticisms to make), most of the journalists interviewed considered that their working conditions for producing good journalism fall short of what is desired. The results suggest that journalists are able and willing to make negative assessments of their own work and to justify these assessments by stating the factors that cause the results to fall short of what is desired, which is promising for future research into the quality of journalism that seeks to focus on the perceptions of those who produce it. In this sense, this is a promising indication and one that does not follow the same line, for example, as that recorded in disinformation studies, where journalists state that the media in general are responsible for spreading disinformation (more than 60% consider that they have at least a moderate role in this process), but reject that the media outlet where they work has to be held accountable for this (^{Miranda et al., 2023}).

A drawback of this study is that it was not possible to interview journalists from CMTV or Rádio Observador, media outlets that were mentioned several times by the interviewees as references (a negative reference in the case of CMTV), something that should be remedied in a future study.

The results of this study could inform future work on the subject of journalists’ perceptions of the quality of journalism, for example through the survey method, in order to establish links between the concerns expressed and journalists’ profiles, the media outlet they work for and their years of experience. It is also considered that it would be important to study the categorisations and classifications of journalism quality from the perspective of the audience in Portugal.