Launching a Career with an Unclear Trajectory

The days of newly minted j-school grads all expecting to start their news media careers at a small-town operation or at the bottom rung of a big-city publication are gone. Whether you miss that era is a matter of opinion.

One thing can be said for the pay-your-dues-and-rise-up-the-ladder model: It was easy for college career counselors to advise students. Amass internships. Lay them out on your resume. Send mass mailings of said resume to any editor or station manager within a 100-mile radius of where you want to work. And let the offers roll in.

With many of the traditional companies that have long hired young journalists opting for hiring freezes, the traditional model has broken down. What does the new model look like? The answer -- as is the case for monetizing online journalism in general -- is that there is no one model.

You can still find some positions with the known commodities or new media players. There are surely upaid internships for the lucky ones who can afford it. Many of the most successful young journalists might launch their careers by proving to news organizations that they have already established a readership base on their own blog or news site.

In other words, they won't wait for a job to come around -- they will create their own niche, demonstrate their design skills or writing talents, become a proven asset rather than an unproven liability.

The future of journalism, as I now firmly believe, is entrepreneurial. There's a strong argument to be made that it's never been easier for talented young writers or broadcasters to make a name for themselves through their own endeavors -- and to eventually cash in on that exposure.

Let's be clear: It's still the Wild West out there. One talented early-career reporter can bounce from sinking publication to sinking publication and lose patience with the field, while another of equal talent can find the right spot and rise along with the fortunes of a successful new publication.

This makes it both an exciting and nerve-racking time to be starting a career in the news business. And while there certainly is every reason for college advisers to be telling students to consider starting off on their own, there have to be other starting options as well.

I would be thrilled to see more publications (existing or yet-to-launch) strive to become first destinations for young people hoping to begin a journalism career. I'm talking about established editors who hire young people who come with 21st-century talents but who are still a bit green and help them grow. In turn, the young people have a lot to offer -- fresh ideas, optimisim and all of this at a bargain price tag.

In this chaos that currently exists, helping to establish a new sort of pipeline would certainly be welcomed.

The Case For Using Cheap (But Not Free) Labor

News publications are always in search of ways to produce more content without spending too much. Journalism students are perpetually looking for clips and experience -- plus some extra cash. It's a match.

J-students have long done internships at newspapers and other media companies, and the most ambitious find roles as stringers for their local publication. But there's been talk recently of expanding the relationship to one in which students contribute more regularly. And I see plenty of reasons why that should work.

1. Students are natural candidates to help out with education beats, college sports coverage, blogging and, perhaps most importantly, video and audio that is likely to come naturally to them. You think publishers are willing to get new media consulation for cheap?

2. Journalism instructors are often reporters at a publication looking to make an extra buck, so there's already a natural connection between the schools and the news staffs. So long as a news site has a relationship with a professor or dean who can handicap his/her students' writing/reporting skills, the arrangement should work.

3. Professors would be able to integrate real-world experiences into their classroom. As a student, I was always more motivated when my interview pick up line was "I'm doing an article for a real live paper" than the dreaded "I'm doing an article for class that will never see the light of day." The so-called "teaching hospital" model of education makes sense for a field that's so hands on to begin with.

4. College newspapers/TV stations are a good way to cut your teeth, but wouldn't it be beneficial to have students competing to see who gets bylines at a professional publication?

There are real concerns here about this type of arrangement lowering the perceived value of what a journalist does, being that the students could be asked to produce content for nothing (if there's academic credit on the table) or near nothing. Which is why it's important for a publication to view the students as helping rather than replacing current staff writers/editors. If the choice is between running more wire or linking to other publications and using modestly paid students to add content, the latter is a good choice.

Then the question becomes how to package the student work. Colleges have successfully set up their own news services, which could be of increasing value to the publications. Or students could set up their own stipend deals with the news sites, so long as there's an agreement that they get compensated.

Whatever the arrangement, there's certainly a good chance for creativity and innovation when fresh faces are brought into a newsroom.

The Downie/Schudson Report, Translated for Students

The chatter this week in journalism circles was about the release of "The Reconstruction of American Journalism," a report from Len Downie Jr. and Michael Schudson. It's 17 must-read (web) pages that cover press history, the fragile state of the news media and what should be done to sustain original reporting.

Understandably, commentators seized on the report's recommendations. A quick summary of the key ideas: a) The IRS or Congress should allow independent news organizations that focus on public affairs reporting to assume nonprofit status; b)Philanthropists should continue to pony up; c) Public media should shift more resources to local news reporting; d) A national local news fund should be created.

Instead of writing a response to the report, I thought I'd highlight some of the key points raised before the recommendations section and translate what it all means for students looking to enter this brave new media world. (Bold sentences are original wording from the report).

Here goes:

Fewer journalists are reporting less news in fewer pages, and the hegemony that near-monopoly metropolitan newspapers enjoyed during the last third of the twentieth century, even as their primary audience eroded, is ending.

Translation: Those traditional reporting internships that j-school placement offices loved to point students toward are drying up. Keep your job-search options open. Don’t be shattered if newspapers won't bring you in; there are plenty of smaller news operations that will have you.

Newspapers and television news are not going to vanish in the foreseeable future.

But don’t be shocked if you do get that coveted old-media internship or first job, either.

The Internet’s easily accessible free information and low-cost advertising have loosened the hold of large, near-monopoly news organizations on audiences and advertisers.

Do you really have to always post your roommate search on Craigslist? How about giving your ol' daily paper a try.

Something is gained when reporting, analysis, and investigation are pursued collaboratively by stable organizations that can facilitate regular reporting by experienced journalists, support them with money, logistics, and legal services, and present their work to a large public.

Don't dismiss your student newspaper. It's long provided the training that has propelled professional journalists to good careers.

Digital technology—joined by innovation and entrepreneurial energy—is opening new possibilities for reporting.

When you get your first news job, get ready for your older colleagues to press you on your knowledge of everything related to social media. Don't wince at the phrase 'Digital Native.'

The fast-increasing number of blog-like hyperlocal neighborhood news sites across the country depend even more heavily for their news reporting on freelancers and citizen contributors that is edited by professional journalists.

Get to know your college town and you can be a content-producing machine.

I saved one of the report's key recommendations for last. It has the most relevance to students right now:

"Universities, both public and private, should become ongoing sources of local, state, specialized subject, and accountability news reporting as part of their educational missions. They should operate their own news organizations, host platforms for other nonprofit news and investigative reporting organizations, provide faculty positions for active individual journalists, and be laboratories for digital innovation in the gathering and sharing of news and information."

In other words, welcome to your first journalism job. Just don't expect to be paid.

Or maybe...

"The most proficient student journalists should advance after graduation to paid residencies and internships, joining fully experienced journalists on year-round staffs of university-based, independently edited local news services, Web sites, and investigative reporting projects."

Questioning the Doc

There's no denying the growing influence that documentary films have on the national debave over issues like the Iraq War and health care. As works of art, they can be powerful. As visual think pieces, they can be effective. But scrutinized reports they are often not...at least before their release.

Here we're talking about the traditional journalistic practice of second-party editors looking at content and context, not to mention occasionally raising questions about how information was received or video obtained.

Media-savvy viewers go into documentaries knowing that the filmmakers may not be striving to produce a balanced work. But shouldn't there be an expectation that documentarians are following a code of conduct?

Much like traditional journalists, documentary makers face myriad ethical concerns, many of which are outlined in a new report from American University's Center for Social Media.

While "old media" types typically adhere to a common set of principles that apply to the craft (don't accept gifts from sources; don't alter a quote or leave out passages that change the context), folks in the documentary world operate without broad standards in ethics practices, according to the report, "Honest Truths: Documentary Filmmakers on Ethical Challenges in Their Work."

The authors interviewed dozens of doc filmmakers, many of whom said the same thing: Commercial pressures and time limitations often force them to consider cutting corners.

Along those lines, the report raises several interesting ethical questions that might look familiar to people at traditional news organizations: Do subjects have a right to review and request changes to a film? Can a director stage an event to further the narrive, particularly if the point wouldn't be made as clearly otherwise? (It happens, as the report notes).

There's a lot of good stuff in the study -- too much to chronicle in this space. But it's a good read, and an even better starting point for a conversation in j-schools about what's lost and gained when work is produced that isn't subjected to traditional news editing.

A Golden Era of Student Writing?

Among the biggest fears of writing instructors these days is that students will slip an "lol" or "u" or emoticon into their writing. In other words, they will momentarily forget their audience -- teacher, not Facebook friend.

In my experience, however, this doesn't happen. I've yet to read a paper as a journalism instructor that looks more like an extended text message than an article. Students can separate personal writing from professional assignments.

There are plenty of things to like about today's young writers. Technology hasn't ruined their ability to craft strong prose -- and in some cases platforms like Twitter and Facebook have helped teach them the importance of brevity.

Clive Thompson argues in a recent Wired piece that the age of illiteracy is not at hand. He notes that young people write far more than any generation before them. "That's because so much socializing takes place online, and it almost always involves text," he says.

Thompson quotes a Stanford University writing and rhetoric instructor who points out that students nowadays are adept at "assessing their audience and adapting their tone and technique to best get their point across." They know when to be pithy and know when to write in a sober tone.

Thompson ends his column by saying that "What today's young people know is that knowing who you're writing for and why you're writing might be the most critical factor of all." This is a key lesson in media literacy, and Thompson's assessment of the young scribes is dead on.

My Baby's a Racist and I Should Kill Granny

....that's what Newsweek tells me, anyway. In consecutive weeks, the increasingly opinionated weekly magazine has gone to press with headlines reading: "Is Your Baby Racist?" and "The Case For Killing Granny." This from the same publication that informed me earlier in the summer that I'm a socialist.

The interesting thing is that the articles corresponding to these in-your-face headlines are fairly sober, straightforward stories -- not sourceless opinion pieces, as you might expect by the bold words out front. The 'racist baby' piece is a look at the roots of racism; the 'granny' piece about the need to rethink end-of-life care for the elderly.

What's clear is that Newsweek has made a calculation about headlines -- tabloid sells (not a new idea for newspapers with the initials NYP.) Or at the least it sets the tone for a new magazine strategy to be more bold, have more columnists and rely more on big names like Fareed Zakaria and editor Jon Meacham.

Newsweek has up front about its changes. "We'll aim to be provocative, but not partisan," a note introducing the new-look magazine stated, adding that there will be more opinionated pieces.

"If we succeed, these well-argued essays will make you feel vindicated—or maybe outraged. But they'll draw you in."

Draw me in those headlines did. But my household gets Newsweek in the mail each week, so we don't seem to be the intended audience. Newsweek said it was dropping its guaranteed circ from 2.6 million to 1.5 million.

What will be telling is how the new headline strategy plays out on the traditional newsstand and the new newsstand -- web news feeds that give readers even more choices from which to select. Bold headlines could equal more clicks. But is there a risk in selling a piece as opinion and delivering something different?

A TV Argument That Packs No Punch

The punch heard 'round the sports world took place after midnight Friday morning where I live. It involved an ungracious football player from Boise State University and an unhinged sore loser from the University of Oregon. The rest of the facts are as follows: The Oregon player socked the Boise State player in the chops just after the final whistle, in front of the Boise State coach and, yes, on national television.

Now, punching an opposing player in front of his own coach is not the smartest idea. That had me talking the next morning. But what most commentators seemed to dwell on was that all this happened live on national TV. The implication: How could this bozo not think about how bad this looks with all the people watching? To that argument I say phooey. Let me explain.

First, do people realize just how many football games are on TV these days? Let's just say the Tulane-Tulsa national TV matchup the next night didn't have me on the edge of my recliner. Whether a sporting event is being shown across the country isn't much of a litmus test.

If this were 1979 or even 1999, the "it looks bad because it's on national TV" argument might hold some weight. Let me explain further. If it's 1979, ESPN isn't big enough yet to show highlights of the incident three times on the half-hour, analyze it, put it online and then moralize over and over. The channel does that now, so why does it matter whether people are watching it live? They'll see the highlight plenty the morning after whenever they tune in. I go back to my opening point about how late this event actually happened. Who was really watching live?

If it's 1999, ESPN gives this play plenty of play on the airwaves. Maybe the clip isn't on an endless loop. Some people surely don't have cable or just don't watch ESPN. And there's no YouTube, most importantly. In 2009, even people who didn't watch the game or even care about the result are looking at the video, talking about it on Twitter, and repurposing it in who knows how many platforms.

So, does it really matter anymore whether something like a football punch happens on live TV? If it's during the national championship game, maybe. But otherwise, the echo effect is so great now that I argue that it doesn't.