In recent days I've heard a number of people say that journalism will survive even if newspapers don't. Journalists who used to work for newspapers will simply switch to online venues and provide the same news coverage, these people say.
They are wrong, at least for the foreseeable future.
You see, while many of us love the practice of journalism we, like everyone else, have a need to be paid for our labor. Even in the current newspaper model, college educated "journalists" can count on barely above minimum wage salaries for a good part of the start of their careers.
Only a very talented few can survive on money they make as freelancers so what will be left are hobby journalists, or bloggers, in other words.
This blog is a good example. First, it is not journalism. It's basically a long column filled with my opinions, observations that are hopefully based on facts as I receive them. So far you can count on the fingers of no hands how much money I have made at this.
Probably Drudge makes a decent living, so does Huffington, but remember they exist largely by ripping off the work of other journalists and reporters of other publications and blogs.
So no, journalism, without a strong base of financial support like that that was once supported by newspapers is not likely to survive in a responsible form.
Sure there will be places to turn for opinions, even news, but without the money to pay competent journalists to collect the stories it will be neither balanced or reliable. A lack of competent copy editors to read, review and correct mistakes will further degrade the quality of online journalism. Heck, my mistakes are proof of that (the name of my blog notwithstanding).
Professors who teach journalism should level with their students that the immediate future for making a living at journalism is pretty dim. Some might even consider steering them into professions where they can actually pay rent and feed a family.
When I'm asked about careers in journalism this is my advice:
"If you are good at science and math, go into medicine. If not think about a career in a service industry or business (not even that looks too good right now). But the return on the investment of a journalism career today is pathetic. A military career provides a better and more secure living than journalism.
For those bent on pursuing a journalism education I simply wish them well and tell them they better be the one who invents a new form of online newspaper so good that people will actually pay for it.
I welcome your take on the future of journalism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Curious why the quotes around journalist when you say today's college educated "journalists."
Perhaps some hostility? What gives?
No hostility at all. I think the word journalist is thrown around far too much.
Edward R. Murrow was a journalist. I, and others like me, were newspaper reporters.
In my opinion, day-to-day reporters are not what I would call journalists. No offense intended and I still think being a newspaperman (or woman) is a noble undertaking, but the lofty term journalist should be reserved for, well, journalists.
But everyone throws that moniker around like it is the same thing. So when people tell me someone who just graduated from college is a journalist, I put it in quotes.
So really nothing gives, just a personal preference on semantics.
This right now is a terrible industry to be in if you're trying to make a living. Out of the many freelance assignments I've tried for, I have one that pays well. The rest want something like this:
1,200 word feature story completed in three days, for a grand total of $40. These days I am maxed out on my free writing and generally tell people my absolute minimal fee is around 15 cents per word; I'll charge less if it's a midnight run article that can be churned out in no time: aricles requiring research and interviews, 15-25 cents. If that price is too high, then they can settle for inferior writing.
Jim, it's comical to me and tantamount to going up to a mechanic and saying, "I need you to put in a new head gasket in my car. I'll pay you $50 to do it."
I disagree with your thoughts that journalism will not survive if newspapers don't. I believe that print newspapers will go away, but that they will be replaced with online newspapers. Those online newspapers, as they are now, will be free to visitors. The revenue will come from advertising, as is the case with print papers. The costs for papers will be reduced drastically because they will no longer have to be printed, delivered, etc. This is the thing, the older journalism generation (no offense) cannot seem to envision this, and that is why so many papers are crumbling right now. The ones that will succeed the best are the ones that accept that this is the future. People are still going to want to get their news from a reliable source, plain and simple. I don't think the future is as dim as you think it is. The future for print, yes. But not the future of journalism. Just my opinion.
Eric, good points all. And admittedly I am a print dinosaur, but I can see that consumers are used to getting their news for free and now advertisers have found free sources for classified and other advertising.
Nearly all newspapers now have an online presence and sell online ads. The revenue from them is not producing near the level of money than the dead tree version.
Sure there will be savings from not printing and delivering the newspaper, but advertisers also know there are other options to getting their word out without buying online ads.
The problem, as I see it and trust me I hope I'm wrong, is that online content is easy to find, copy and distribute on other websites and blogs, sometimes with attribution and many times not.
Advertisers will be wary of spending much money on a website where the same content will be available in 100 other places, which will happen when bloggers and other online newspapers take the content and place it elsewhere on their own.
See americantowns.com for what I'm talking about. Advertisers aren't stupid and they know people will go where it is easiest and less distracting to get their news.
Online has completely flipped journalism on its head and none of the young lions who head newspapers (especially the Flint Journal) saw this coming and still haven't figured out a way to beat it.
But, as I also said, you and others may find a way to reinvent online journalism. I don't see it, but that doesn't mean it can't or won't happen.
In the meantime, I would suggest anyone trying to make a living in journalism get a second job that will allow you to rent a decent home, drive a reliable car and feed yourself or you family.
See the post above your's.
Richard:
The difference between those of us who love to write and your mechanic is that the mechanic will say no to a low price, but writers, especially ones with passion, will agree just to keep doing what they love.
Publishers have figured this out. People who love to write will sacrifice much more than other skilled workers to do what they love.
It is why union guilds failed. There were too many people who would do the job for less. We were our own enemy.
I once had a publisher (weekly)who told me directly that he could always pay reporters less than advertising reps simply because writers were motivated by doing the job and advertisers were motivated by making money.
At some point in your life, you realize that while there is a high level of satisfaction in doing your job, there is also the part where you want to adequately provided for yourself and your family.
How does the stat go? A paid online ad needs 10 pairs of eyes on it to generate as much revenue as one set of eyes on that same ad in a newspaper?
Well, if you have people who know what they are doing with promoting online content, is there not much more potential to attract a greater number of eyes online than there ever was in print?
The first premise of your statement is key "knowing what they are doing." There are people who know what they are doing, but they are not in positions of authority and the people in authority (read editor and his first lieutenant) haven't a clue.
Secondly, you'll have to convince me that people in Texas, Ohio, etc. will have an interest in a Flint news website in any great numbers.
Advertisers in Flint won't count eyes that look at their ads from distances further than 50 miles.
All the Booth newspapers are already crowing that when you add together their print and online readers there have never been more eyes on the chain. So why are they failing so badly?
Sure you can get people all over the country to look in (heck, I've had visitors from 44 countries and 47 states and the District of Columbia, but they probably are here because of a specific interest in newspapers.
If you produce an online news service from say, Flint, or Michigan, you will still have the issue of people going to the NY Times website for national and international news and so your audience is essentially culled from the same herd.
As I continue to say, there may be a model out there that works, but no one has shown me one yet.
I know how the market works. I don't have a problem with ad reps making more than me, but how much more they make irks me. A few years ago I learned one ad rep complain he made $37,000 less than the year before. That's way more than I've ever made in a year as a reporter.
Too big a chasm, me thinks. But for now I have no choice but to accept it or try to go elsewhere (and I say try, because the job market for the media in general is quite feeble).
I just publishers would spread the wealth a bit. You'd think that with a motivated and content writing staff, the paper would be better and therefore attract more readers and higher ad rates.
Post a Comment