August 9, 2000
Journalists Simply Seek Out a Better Quality of Life, Not Riches, on the Web
By Arun Kristian Das
The World Wide Web has changed the face of journalism. The days are numbered for newspapers and magazines. Broadband Internet will swallow television broadcasting.
Perhaps, but probably not. While many journalists ponder the future of their craft and profession in this ever-changing landscape, the present is as dynamic as ever. While the advent of the Internet island has surely spun journalism in a new direction, luring countless reporters and editors to its shores while traditional media find a way to adapt and compete, one thing is the same yet different across all media: the newsroom. Same in the sense that whatever the medium--print, television, Web--journalists, at least for now, perform many of their duties in a newsroom somewhere. But regardless of where else a reporter may spend a lot of time--on the streets, in city hall's pressroom, at the ballpark--the newsroom is also where the visible changes in a news organization occurs.
And despite the so-called dot-com shakeout of late, there is no arguing with the hard numbers. According to figures appearing in the July/August 2000 issue of Columbia Journalism Review, only 6% of Americans got daily news off the Web in 1998, whereas 20% do today. Also, 68% of print publications had Web sites in 1998, whereas 93% have an online presence today. Figures also support the notion that print news, while declining somewhat, is not being replaced by the Web. A study published in the spring 2000 issue of the Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly shows that in 1999 54.2% of Americans "used" daily newspapers, down from 59.3% in 1995, not a serious drop.
So while newspapers and magazines aren't going to wither away any time soon, there is no denying the growing force of the Web, and what transition in the workplace does to the practice of journalism. My own newspaper, The Bond Buyer, a daily trade publication covering the municipal bond market, has lost 14 reporters in the last seven months. While many of them left for opportunities at magazines and newspapers, quite a few--at least seven by my count--made the transition to new media ventures, including SmartMoney.com, Forbes.com, CNBC.com, and CBS MarketWatch.
As a member of The Bond Buyer's newsroom, seeing so many people leave in such a short time made me stop and think: "What's going on here?" And while it is obvious to me that reporters and editors with ambition and talent will always be in demand and thus will surely entertain offers and pursue opportunities, for money or exposure, to see today's journalism merry-go-round in action from the front row gives me pause. I wondered if all these reporters who left my paper, many of whom seemed quite content, left simply out of greed for a fatter paycheck. Or was there something about Web journalism other than the dollar signs that sparked their interest?
So while it may be a cliché to say that people are making the jump to the dot-com world for fortune, in journalism, while the pay at new media outlets tends to be more generous than in print, perhaps it is more fair to say that journalists are simply seeking a fair wage for their talents. At least that is what Robert Hood, a senior producer/multimedia at MSNBC.com, said is the reason he made the switch. While his editor at his first full-time job as a photojournalist at a newspaper praised and appreciated his work, Hood said he had to fight for every meager raise. It was in graduate school that he first came to learn about the possibilities and opportunities in digital journalism.
"I believe I was part of the first wave to wash up on the new media beach," Hood said, quite appropriately, in e-mail responses to interview questions. "After working in print for several years I went through a huge burnout. I quit newspapers and went to graduate school at the University of Missouri. That is where I was first exposed to electronic journalism. I was excited by it from the beginning."
He said he was paid around $16,000 per year for about a 60-hour work week at his first newspaper job, but after grad school found his way to MSNBC.com in 1996, where he works about 50 hours a week and said he is much happier with his current salary. In a commentary that he wrote for the May/June 2000 CJR, Hood said that while he respects newspaper journalism, his dot-com job pays him a "living wage" and allows him to enjoy a personal and family life, as well. On top of all that, he can afford to save money for the future.
And while he doesn't want to rule out a return to newspaper work if the right opportunity presented itself, Hood said that he loves Web journalism because "we can choose the medium that best tells each story. If it's a story about taxes of social security we let that be text. ... If it's a story about a plane crash then we tell that story with video. If it is story about the Grammys then we put audio cuts of the songs in the story. Then we add interactivity, and we're really cooking with gas."
Smaller-market newspapers have been hit by the so-called Internet brain drain especially hard, not being able to compete with many Web-based outlets for new talent. According to an article in the July/August 1999 CJR, newspaper reporters with less than one year of experience in a small market such as San Marcos, Texas, earn an annual salary of $18,000. On the other hand, a content producer with one year of experience in the New York Times' online department makes $34,000. A staff reporter with two to three years of experience at TheStreet.com pulls in $44,000, according to the CJR article, while an entry-level reporter at the Daily Record of Morris County, N.J., makes about $28,000, said Joesph Ungaro, the paper's metro editor.
Ungaro, who has been a journalist for 14 years including 10 at the Associated Press, said his first news job, as a sportswriter in Tennessee, paid him a mere $175 per week. And while he endured low salaries and long hours during his career, he said he knew full well that the jobs "required long hours and I accepted it."
As an editor in the newsroom, Ungaro has observed transition, but said only two reporters in the last year have left the Record, a 50,000-circulation publication, for dot-com land. In fact, Ungaro said that turnover at his paper is more tied to geography--young, eager reporters leaving for opportunities in bigger cities after getting some good experience in Morris County--rather than correlated with the proliferation of jobs on the Web. The departure of reporters to the Web has not really affected the morale in his newsroom, Ungaro said, even though he does acknowledge that he believes most journalists jump online because the "money is much better."
His own future? "I know the newspaper business, I like the newspaper business," Ungaro said. "I'm not seriously considering it," he said of the prospect of joining an Internet news organization. "I'm not really sure where [the Web] is going." For the time being, the Record has "adapted to the Web just as papers adapted to radio, to TV."
A former magazine editor, who now heads up on of the most talked-about Web startups, offered a contrasting perspective. Michael Hirschorn, editor-in-chief of Inside.com, said in a phone interview, "Magazines tend not to innovate. There are only two or three magazines out there that take any chances." Hirschorn said that the Internet, on the other hand, is still in its molten period, and that makes it exciting. "You're shaping Web journalism, you're basically figuring out how this will be done for the future."
Hirschorn is a veteran of magazines, starting out more than 10 years ago in an internship at the New Republic and has since made his mark as a top editor at New York magazine and Spin. He said he considered opportunities in new media for a few years before making the commitment with Kurt Andersen to establish Powerful Media, Inside's parent company, and take his talents exclusively online.
"I thought about doing something at Sidewalk.com in 1995," he said, referring to the venture that was swallowed up by Ticketmaster Online/CitySearch. "And I'm glad I didn't because that turned out to be the right decision. I also had the chance to do something at TheStreet.com in 1997, and I don't know, maybe I should have," he added with a chuckle.
And while the speed of Internet journalism, where a Web site needs to constantly be updated, puts relentless stress and pressure on its reporters, editors, and producers, it is that same speed, and resulting variety, that Hirschorn said is his favorite aspect of the medium. "I tell my people that if they don't have a full story finished, they can post a paragraph or two for the time being."
MSNBC.com's Hood had a similar view, likening the nature of Web news to wire service reporting. "It's stressful, but in a different way from traditional print," he said. "The thing about publishing on the Web is that you're always on deadline. However, what that actually feels like is never being on deadline. If you miss this deadline, another one comes around in 30 minutes. We drive real hard to be first and to be best."
But what is crucial is for Web journalists to strive to not sacrifice quality and accuracy for speed. "The pressure to be first can allow for errors," Hood said. "However, those errors are easily corrected in a digital environment. You can't do that with a newspaper--once it's printed and out there you can't fix it. The bigger issue is the idea that all the journalistic concerns, ethics, work habits, etc. that are applied to traditional media should also be applied to working online."
Hirschorn said that he does not think the Internet's pace affects journalistic accuracy, but acknowledges there is that danger. "The quality of the writing goes down, there are more typos, and it's harder to step back and provide context," he said.
And yes, just like Hood, Hirschorn acknowledges that in addition to the excitement of working in the medium, the money is good, too. But rather than making anyone filthy rich, opportunities on the Web, including at his own shop, give talented journalists the chance to "have a meaningful financial stake in what they do ... build a substantial nest egg and work and benefit themselves at the same time." He added that at the better newspapers, a journalist has to commit to a 10- or 20-year career path to ever get a chance at some financial stability, while Internet opportunities tend to reward good, hard work sooner.
And while the dot-com shakeout may have put a scare in to all those who venture onto the Net, including journalists, Hirschorn said that currently more magazines go out of business than Web sites. But, certainly, consolidation of different Web outlets will occur, he said, resulting in fewer but more stable ventures that can find a workable income-generating model.
Rather than be labeled, on the worst end of the spectrum, as sellouts or money-hungry hacks, Web journalists want and should strive for a high level of competence practicing the profession in an exciting and versatile new medium of storytelling. It is good, accurate storytelling that is the ultimate goal, and those that succeed should be able to make a living at it, enjoy some stability, and not worry so much about becoming destitute.
And that is really the point--stability. While very few jobs in any sector of corporate America are all that secure, at least lawyers, bankers and stock brokers--if they have been even modestly penny-wise--make enough money to maintain some amount of financial security should they find themselves on the outside of a locked office door. And it is that kind of security that hard-working journalists deserve, and is what many say is possible in a traditional setting while so many others say they have, or at least appear to have, in Internet news.
"[I feel] more secure than I ever felt at a newspaper," Hood said. ###