I was all prepared to write this nice post today about what I’d heard and learned at my stepson’s graduation from Columbia yesterday. That is, until Sid sent me a link to an article by a Swedish professor of media economics, posted in the Christian Science Monitor. It would seem the good professor thinks journalists aren’t worthy of decent pay.
He starts with the premise that journalists look upon their work in sacred, moralistic terms. He then goes on to tell us why we fail and why we deserve low pay. Sorry, professor. You based your entire argument on a false notion.
Oh sure, there are a few journalists who think they churn out gold. I’ve worked with them. They don’t necessarily get jobs because they’re too damned busy arguing about why you took out an adjective or eliminated a sentence to make it all fit in the magazine.
But the rest of us? We create value every day for our clients. You contend we are not. Yet there you are writing for the Christian Science Monitor, making what I would assume is a decent wage. (If you gave that article away, shame on you.) So at the very core your argument falls apart because you yourself have used the media to make it.
You say economic value is lost on us, that we can produce only instrumental value, which in your opinion has little worth. We can’t produce economic value, you say. Clearly, you’ve never worked as a freelancer.
It’s as though the mistaken notion that anyone can write is at work here, for if you’ve worked as a freelancer, you know that’s not so. We’ve seen resumes that look like train wrecks, website copy that screams amateurish, brochures that look like kids wrote them, or any host of business communications that do more to repel business than attract it.
You said “Journalists are not professionals with a unique base of knowledge such as professors or electricians.” Here’s the thing, professor. Any of us could read the textbooks from your classes and gain the same knowledge as those sitting there listening to countless lectures. Any of us could have the same knowledge you get paid to teach – for free. Does that mean that professors also have no unique base of knowledge? Since you learned teaching in the same manner I learned journalism (by going to college, sitting in classrooms, writing papers, and absorbing knowledge), it’s not looking well for you either, professor. Better yet, we have something professors don’t – real-world experience in the very subjects you teach. When was the last time you went outside the classrom and applied your knowledge to the real world? For that reason, I can’t believe your argument that our base of knowledge is any less than yours. Seriously. Did you think that was going to wash?
I will agree with you – strongly – that journalists have gotten lazy with the vast improvements in the availability of access to information. Too often, they’ll take what’s on the Internet as fact. No more will they trace that information to its source to determine its validity. That, professor, is the point you and I will always agree on.
We will also agree that if journalists don’t adapt, they’ll die. It’s already happening. Why? Because information they put into print is now free for the taking. I stopped buying newspapers years ago.
I realize this article of yours was aimed at journalists and more specifically newspapers, not so much the freelance world. And that generalists are the one suffering, and should be in your opinion, due to the lack of specialization. All true. What I take exception to is as I stated from the start is the idea that we idolize our work or that we can’t churn out anything more than work based on beauty, truth, or harmony. Too often, great journalism is overlooked by such overstatements. Your own work incites thought, argument, and compels me to write this post, which will create discussion, debate, and affect change at some level, whether it’s a change in attitude or a change in business practices. Either way, professor, your article and its effects on me proves your theory wrong. Journalism is much more than a sacred cow of the arts. It’s a vehicle for change.
Wow, Lori!
Not having your background, I don’t naturally have the same passion about the subject that you do. But I certainly caught it from this post – which in a small way proves your point, doesn’t it?
My view: Plenty of people can lay stone, but those who do it consistently and with a passion for the art of stonework are the ones I want doing the heavy lifting for my garden! They certainly deserve to earn a living for specializing & practicing their craft.
Full source disclosure: I was pointed to the article by a tweet ( http://twitter.com/mariaschneider/statuses/1859485143 )from Maria Schneider of Editor Unleashed ( http://editorunleashed.com/ ).
Sid.
Cheryl, I think it was simply too early and I hadn’t slept well. 🙂 But no, I downplay it. I really do feel strongly about anyone saying that someone outside their own chosen field doesn’t deserve respectable payment. It’s like asking a doctor to assess the value of rocket science.
Sid, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I agree. There are a lot of bricklayers, but not too many who take care to place the bricks in the right fashion.
And thanks to Maria for originally tweeting this!
Aghhhh! I can’t believe he actually said some of those things! Good for you, Lori, for your response. Not professionals, indeed.
Obviously, the guy’s never read Pete Hamill.
As a professor, he should be smarter than to make sweeping generalizations.
Perhaps proof of those who can’t do, teach?
I’m not thrilled about the current state of journalism either, because too often unresearched commentary is passed off as journalism. But there’s still some great stuff out there.
And we DO learn skills the same way as a plumber or an electrician or a surgeon or a teacher.
We deserve to be paid well.
Really interesting the comment above about Pete Hamill. What a terrific writer he is! I’ve not thought about him for several years.
Re the OP-ED piece by the professor in the UK. I read the article and get the gist of it because I’m in close contact with our local newspaper staff and they’ve really been effected by the internet. Ad revenues have dropped significantally over the last few years to the point they’re really scrambling to find direction. Ad revenues from their online version are not making up for the decrease in print ads and subscriptions.
I can say that in my age bracket, near 70, few know much about the computer and most don’t have one in their home. I wonder where this transition line is?
I use Helen Berman’s website as a resource tool for my advertising sales business and her contention is that the editorial staff creates the value that becomes the value for the consumer, therefore drives the value.
Chuck