Posts
Shocked? So am I.
But that’s the view taken by Michael Hickens of the Faster Times, who says that when he was editor of Ziff Davis Enterprise, he made $90,000—and had reporters who made more than that.
My experience—and the experience of several colleagues I polled—has been nothing like that. We toil for salaries less than half of that figure.
So, are overpaid journalists killing newspapers? I’d much rather say it’s the Internet.
July 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Let me guess, Ziff Davis is now bankrupt? I doubt that most journalists get paid anywhere near 90k, at least not in this day and age.
ReplyDeleteThe Internet isn't killing newspapers. People are. That is not a joke. People do not care about local news or local government anymore. The overwhelming majority of the public have stopped reading the local news -- in print or on line -- because they just don't care who is running the town council or what the local elected officials are doing. The attitude is: "Whoever is on town council is going to raise taxes anyway, so why should I waste time getting involved?"
ReplyDeleteIt's not the Internet or the economy. The cause of newspapers' decline is the lack of readers. And there is NOTHING that the newspapers can do to get those people back. The non-readers do not now, nor will they ever again, care to read the local news.
Oh, dear. I agree with James but get really depressed when he goes all pessimistic on us. Something about community connection here and the role that newspapers play in holding us together. Will we actually go to town meetings when there are no newspapers to report on them? Probably not. And then what? This is scarier than the Wizard of Oz!
ReplyDeleteThe Media Proofreader: Nope, Ziff Davis seems to be alive and kicking. The digital media company claims to get over 7 million unique visitors a month on their sites, which include “PCMag.com,” “Good Clean Tech” and “Cranky Geeks.” Perhaps the inflated salaries come from being based in New York City and San Francisco. I imagine that reporters there need to make a much higher salary just to keep up with the standard of living.
ReplyDeleteJames and Trina: My mother sits down to read our hometown publication every weekend, but I think she is one of the few. But people haven’t stopped reading altogether, have they?
The question for journalism is: What do readers want?
A community newspaper in Ann Arbor, Michigan went out of business just a couple days ago. In its place, its parent company Advance Publications is creating an online publication with “hyper-local” coverage of neighborhoods and “tapping dozens of bloggers for information on books, food and culture.” It will publish a print publication on Thursdays and Sundays.
(See the article here: http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jul/23/us-ann-arbor-news-goodbye-072309/?business&zIndex=136861 )
Is that really that different from the local newspapers of old? Check out the new site: AnnArbor.com. I don’t think we’ve found the new business model for journalism quite yet.
I agree with James and Trina, and unfortunately think I am one of those people who falls into the category they speak of: people who don't read/listen the news anymore (on the internet, in print, on tv, or radio). I'm not apathetic, but maybe it's a combination of not having enough time and feeling like I'm never getting the whole picture anyway. Most of the news I get comes from word of mouth, and if it's intriguing enough, I'll look into it myself.
ReplyDeleteThe standard of living issue is a tough one. I have a friend who lives in a northern jersey suburb (a short distance from NYC) and her little townhome cost about twice what my condo here cost. Sure, she has a little more square footage, but it's not in any better shape. She'd probably have a hard time living on 90k.
ReplyDeleteJames is right. We're used to "breaking news" on cable tv, where they paint everything as very exciting. Though local news may ultimately impact us more, it tends to be more boring. Just like why turn out is lower for national elections than local ones, even if the local ones probably impact us more on a day to day basis.
ReplyDeleteI think we're all becoming ADD. We have no patience for the in-depth, the why, the how of a particular situation. Perhaps we always were searching for the new, the hot, the breaking news. It's coming at us much more quickly now and newspapers can't compete with the Internet, let alone Twitter, on that plane. The situation is not just dangerous for newspapers. Without the analysis, the in-depth, the carefully framed debate that print is traditionally good at, how are we to make informed decisions? How are we to make a democracy function?
ReplyDeleteIT PERSONALLY THINK IT IS ABOUT TIME ALL PRINT MEDIA HAD AN INTERNET VERSION LIKE SOME OF THESE PROMINENT ONES DO, IF THEY REALLY WANT TO KEEP UP WITH THE "MARKET".
ReplyDeleteJenn Fenn and Trina: That's an interesting idea about national news being equated with the new, the hot, the exciting and local news with the boring. I don't know that there really is an argument against it. There's the war in Iraq, the five bills for a new healthcare systems, and countless natural disasters, government wrangling, and crazy odd stories to entertain us on the national level. On the local level in Philadelphia, we have Fumo. But then again, many of the national stories come from local newspapers-- especially the odd news-- and many of the national stories are in fact localized by your friendly neighborhood journalists to appeal to the local community.
ReplyDeleteIs the difference then between the faster media of television, radio, and the internet and the slower print medium? Could the continually growing role of the internet really be a boon to print journalism? I'm not sure. I still think there needs to be a place for that local in-depth coverage. But there are so many different places it could come from: blogs, local online magazines, local online newspapers. There are so many possibilities.
STEPS: I agree, it is about time for all print media to have an internet version so that they can keep up with the market. What better way is there to disseminate information in this day and age? Do you think web journalists should then be paid higher wages than print journalists because they can assist in this transition?