Slashdot Mirror


Pay-Per-View Journalism Is Burning Out Reporters Young

Hugh Pickens writes "Young journalists once dreamed of trotting the globe in pursuit of a story, but the NY Times now reports that instead many are working online shackled to their computers, where they try to eke out a fresh thought or be first to report even the smallest nugget of news — anything that will impress Google's algorithms and draw readers their way. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times all display a 'most viewed' list on their home pages; some media outlets, including Bloomberg News and Gawker Media, now pay writers based in part on how many readers click on their articles. 'At a [traditional] paper, your only real stress point is in the evening when you're actually sitting there on deadline, trying to file,' says Jim VandeHei, Politico's executive editor. 'Now at any point in the day starting at 5 in the morning, there can be that same level of intensity and pressure to get something out.' The pace has led to substantial turnover in staff at digital news organizations. At Politico, roughly a dozen reporters have left in the first half of the year — a big number for a newsroom that has only about 70 reporters and editors. 'When my students come back to visit, they carry the exhaustion of a person who's been working for a decade, not a couple of years,' says Duy Linh Tu of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. 'I worry about burnout.'"

19 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. It doesn't matter by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Investigative journalism is dead.

    The only thing left for journalists to do is put a little spin on corporate and government press releases.

    1. Re:It doesn't matter by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The state of journalism is really sad. So much focus on scandals, not enough on important stories. So much focus on whether politicians' rhetoric is being successful in moving the polls, not enough on whether the politicians' actions are helping people. So much focus on X number of people dying someplace-or-other, with very little description of anything good or productive going on anywhere. So much focus on all the things that will kill you, not enough focus on telling you how you can help others.

      I've given up. I barely pay attention to news anymore.

    2. Re:It doesn't matter by natehoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, I think you'll find that true investigative journalism has simply become unprofitable. It's not that people don't want to work on it, it's that no one really wants to report verified, accurate fact with as little bias as possible any more.

      Introducing a bias that whips your audience into a frenzy sells a shitload more ads.

      And why bother verifying (or, let's be honest, even collecting!) facts when all you want to do is keep your audience angry enough about the only they know for sure. The simple fact that everyone but you is lying to them about everything?

      Investigative journalism still exists, to an extent. But it's going away, because advertisers pay the outlets that attract the most eyeballs, and people aren't willing to pay for the newspaper any more.

      We are, truly, getting the news outlets we so richly deserve.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    3. Re:It doesn't matter by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've given up. I barely pay attention to news anymore.

      Its called "extreme narrrowcasting". A pretty effective industry killer. Usually comes from over management and/or over reliance on simplistic metrics. Generally requires an oligopoly where only a couple companies control the market. Also requires shortsightedness, not exactly a quality lacking in American corporations.

      In a healthy ecology of news sources, the supplier with the most "scandal/rhetoric" will probably beat the more bland supplier. However, when escalated, it rapidly repels the population, until one supplier gloriously achieves 100% of the market of the remaining 1% of the consumers.

      In the movie biz, it leads to endless sequels of formulaic movies. In the music biz it leads to lip syncing and formulaic music. In the video game biz it leads to FPS sequels, or in the early 80s led to quite an industry crash. In the news biz it forces tabloid journalism.

      Once enough people are fed up, the entire industry collapses, and reboots, essentially.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  2. Welcome to the Digital Age! by Cornwallis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm sure this "burnout" isn't confined to journalism. Virtually everybody I know who is shackled to a deskjob with an email account faces the same problem.

    The electronic leash has gotten so tight nobody can breathe anymore. I know I can't.

    No matter how "nice" the workplace, in today's "competitive" marketplace you've got to be first - and if the 20-somethings are feeling that put-upon think how a 50ish guy like me must feel!

    1. Re:Welcome to the Digital Age! by qbzzt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's competition. When you have ten thousand journalists trying to do a job of a few hundreds, of course they'll have to work extra hard to beat each other.

      If you don't want the electronic leash to be so tight, you have to do something with less competition, where you have a competitive advantage. For example, instead of reporting on standard events, provide analysis based on knowledge that isn't very widely available.

      --
      -- Support a free market in the field of government
  3. Or become real reporters. by khasim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Watch a week of The Daily Show. Watch how they compare current comments by politicians to past comments by those same politicians.

    I don't think this is about the time-to-publish.

    I think this is more about not having the depth or experience to dig into the background material. Reporters who really know their subject material will have no problem attracting viewers.

    1. Re:Or become real reporters. by Altus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its not that they are journalists but how is it that nobody in the actual industry ever goes back and calls people on what they said 6 months ago?

      Doing that gets the Daily show a lot of viewers, I would think that doing the same thing in a more rigorous journalistic environment would get you a lot of eyeballs.

      Of course once you start doing that, you loose your access to politicians and people of note because they can always find people willing to show up to a press conference and not ask any difficult questions in the hope of getting a few eyeballs on their web site.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    2. Re:Or become real reporters. by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then watch the entire footage those "clips" the Daily Show edits.
      I'm a Daily Show and Colbert fan, but please don't take them as real journalists. Even they themselves say that.

      True and yet... an awful lot of journalists don't even make it to that low bar.

      On one hand, it's a little bad to forever hold politicians accountable to everything they've ever said, in that it rewards rigidity of thinking and punishes the kind of intellectual and political honesty it takes to be able to admit publically that you were wrong and you've changed your mind.

      On the other hand, it's a lot bad to not hold them accountable at all to their past statements.

      It should be someone's job to do that research and, when relevant, put the positions into context. Is this not the job of a political journalist? Should not some real journalist be able to carve out a niche for themselves by doing the Daily Show style job of saying, "Wait a minute, here's Rudy '9/11' Giuliani claiming that there were no domestic terrorist attacks during the Bush Administration, and he almost can't complete a sentence without referencing one..."?

      I think you'd be able to do that job pretty well even in a non-partisan way -- politicians of every stripe and creed walk into those situations constantly.

    3. Re:Or become real reporters. by Redlazer · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This.

      It may be true that things are taken out of context to some extent, but these people are still saying these things.

      TDS and TCR aren't taking a quote like "There's no evidence that Obama is a racist who hates white people" and turning it into "Obama is a racist who hates white people". They are not hiding behind words, lying, or otherwise abusing the concept of journalism. They are no AP, or whoever, but they are ultimately honest commentators who call out when other people are being dishonest.

      Also, a politician who says "I once believe this, but changed my mind because of this, and now I believe this", is promptly removed from office.

      --
      Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
    4. Re:Or become real reporters. by DancesWithBlowTorch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doing that gets the Daily show a lot of viewers, I would think that doing the same thing in a more rigorous journalistic environment would get you a lot of eyeballs.

      This is exactly what I do not understand about online journalism. At the moment, newspapers seem to be in a race to the bottom, with each trying to publish the same sort of crap before everyone else; mostly rehashed press-releases, all the while complaining that nobody wants to pay for their news online.

      Maybe I am part of a small target group. But, dear newspaper publishers: Please give me a website that
      1. pays talented journalists a decent salary to go out and investigate complex stories, actually reveal novel information, and then come back and write lucid, enlightening stories.
      2. does not show any ads, thereby making itself independent from corporations for revenue, turning the readers into the sole customers.
      3. has a calm, clean layout, accessible from both the desktop and mobile devices, hassle free. Oh, and please actually fill my damn screen with text and images, instead of using 20% of its width to show 50-line articles broken into 5 pages, filling the rest with horrible flash ads.

      I am willing to pay, say, 200$ a year for a subscription to this site (I currently pay a similar amount for print subscriptions to a weekly and a monthly paper). It doesn't have to have hourly updates, all I want is something to read for an hour in bed every evening. I don't understand why such a website doesn't exist yet. I know, ads are an important part of traditional publishing, but web publishing is cheaper (printing presses and paper boys are more expensive than servers and bandwidth), and there are great economies of scale: The first publisher to establish a high-quality online news service will be able to attract readers from the entire English-speaking world.

      Seriously, I don't get it. Why is everyone still trying to make money with ads?

  4. Here's a thought by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Informative

    Do what Radley Balko, probably the most important civil liberties reporter out there right now, does: actually go after the nitty gritty details of the stories that rub you the wrong way from the police reports. He's taken "mundane" stories and turned them into WTF?! controversies (which they deserved to be) by doing that. To my knowledge, he rarely has to fight with other reporters over the same stories because, well, he actually **investigates** rather than do a few phone calls and call it a day.

    1. Re:Here's a thought by blair1q · · Score: 4, Funny

      And if anyone thinks google's decisions should be part of their compensation, they should know that google decided to return this as the first image when i searched for Radley Balko:

      http://www.pescare.com/siluro/images3/micione1.JPG

      The second was no more pertinent, but a whole lot less rude about it:

      http://farm1.static.flickr.com/94/249737018_3f387acbc5_o.jpg

  5. I'm Feeling Bored and Creative... by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Young engineers once dreamed of hacking the globe in pursuit of a new invention, but the NY Times now reports that instead many are working shackled to their computers, where they try to eke out a fresh bug or try to solve some miniscule problem involving the smallest of system parts — anything that will impress executive boards and draw bonuses their way. Lockheed Martin, The Boeing Company, and Northrop Grumman all peddle very advanced defense technologies to the United States Government that require armies of engineers to aggregate existing subcomponents from other contractors in order to generate cost plus revenue on project contracts. 'At a [traditional] engineering company, your stress point is just before the design review with the customer, where you are trying to explain the solution to his problem with a last-minute presentation. 'Now at any point in the day starting at 5 in the morning, there can be that same level of intensity and pressure to get something out when one of your middle manager bosses comes knocking at your cubicle entrance for a surprise study of your progress.' The pace has led to substantial turnover in staff at large engineering firms all over the nation. At all three major defense contractors, hundreds of engineers have been laid off due to contract cancellations resulting from schedule overruns. 'When my students come back to visit, they carry the exhaustion of a person who's been working for a decade, not a couple of years,' says [Random Engineering Professor] of the [Random Engineering College]. 'I worry about burnout.'"

    Yup...it fits well enough. Burnout is what happens when retarded business majors and incompetent morons get promoted up the company power ladder for slightly increasing this quarter's profit. If you head up organizations with short term thinkers, then it is the grunt workers at the bottom that suffer in every industry. This is the result of living in a money-worshiping society that values the next dollar above all else.

    You want to do your part to change the way things work in your industry young reporters? It's simple. Stop working for the large media outlets that treat you like a consumable resource. Instead, find a nice local newspaper that treats its employees with respect or, better yet, start your own independent blog. Will you make as much money? Nah. Will you live longer with more sanity? Probably. You can't have your cake and eat it to. Have enough respect for yourself to make your income a means to an end, rather than the end itself, and your employers will start to treat you with respect as well. If you are insecure enough in your persona to let a large company rape you up and down the halls in terms of stress and hours worked, then you are going to get stomped on throughout your entire career until you are finally subdued into a finally beaten pulp of what was once a human being.

  6. Nothing new to see here by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Any young journalist coming out of college in *ANY* era thinking that journalism is going to mean "trotting the globe in pursuit of a story" is in for a huge disappointment. Even in the heyday of journalism, very few journalists ever even left their town on city. For every Bob Woodward, there are about 1,000 local reporters whose most exciting story of the year involves an argument at a town council meeting.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  7. Re:True, its hard to make a living as a by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you want to trot the world, see strange places and break that AWESOME story, then, well, you're going to have to take some risks. Get out from behind the desk. Actually see the world and ... GASP ... FIND SOME FUCKING NEWS TO REPORT ON OF YOUR OWN.

    And that's what you do, right? Because it's just that easy. Grab your passport, get some plane tickets, fly your way to Myanmar, buy your way into the inner circle of government, then fly back to Los Angeles and write your exposé on corruption in the Myanmar dictatorship and sell it to the Los Angeles Times for, oh, let's say $1,000. Rinse and repeat. Right?

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  8. Publishers have shot themselves in the foot by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's the advertising model that's to blame. And the publishers are the ones who agreed to play this way, so you can point the finger there.

    In the old days, a publication would go to advertisers and say, "We have a brand that's recognized blah-de-blah and we have a daily/weekly/monthly circulation of dee-da-dee, here are some studies that show who our average reader is, this is their purchasing power, do you want to advertise with us or not?" And if you were the New York Times, they would. No further questions asked.

    I come from the world of trade publishing. You know those magazines like Information Week where you can fill out a survey and you get the subscriptions for free? That survey is what's paying for your subscription. That survey is what we take to advertisers to explain to them exactly who our readers are and how advertisers can expect to reach people in IT with purchasing power if they advertise in our pages. These "qualified circulation" magazines can often charge advertisers more than a regular, pay-for-subscription magazine can, because we know more about our readers (assuming the readers tell the truth, but ignoring that is a little game the entire industry agrees to play). Again, it's not about who the advertiser reached with an ad. It's about who they could reach.

    That was the past.

    Now, in a desperate bid to ignite the online advertising market, publishers have made a devil's bargain. Now they agree to turn over reams of Web logs for every page view they serve. The advertiser wants to know: Exactly how many times did you serve our ad? For what content? Who saw it? When was it served on a story that did well and when was it served on a story that nobody saw? How can we stop putting our ad on your boring stories and only put it on the stories that people like?

    That last sentence is the kicker. You can see where it leads. More and more, the publication is compelled to stop running stories that aren't hits and only try to run stories that will be "viral" blockbusters. This pressure is incredibly difficult to ignore, but it's insidious. It erodes the judgment of the editorial department at any publication. It leads to the kind of story-chasing described in TFA.

    And don't think blogs are going to save the industry this time. It's even worse at some unknown blog -- how are you ever going to get your voice heard if nobody visits your blog? So you need a headline. You need a sensational story. You'll do it just this one time, and everybody will keep coming back for all your other scintillating insights that aren't quite so sensational ... sorry, Charlie. It won't work. You'll end up doing it too.

    The only way to fix it is for publishers to turn off the faucet. You want to see an exact breakdown of our Web logs and how your ads are skewing with what story, when and how? Fuck you. That's proprietary information that we don't release to our clients. Suffice it to say that we are a leading publication in our field. Take or leave.

    But how likely is that?

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:Publishers have shot themselves in the foot by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, but you've missed the point completely.

      This isn't like TV or newspaper, where advertisements play whether people are watching it or not.

      Now you're getting Zen. If an ad is printed in a newspaper, but the newspaper gets shredded and used to line a bird cage, does the ad "play"?

      Paying for each time a page loads is why we're in this predicament. Advertisers want to pay for stories that get seen by the largest number of people. They don't want to pay for obscure or convoluted stories that don't get easy airplay. But the stories that people want to read are not necessarily the most important stories, let alone the best examples of journalism.

      You see the trend toward sensationalism, celebrity news, lurid dramas, etc., in almost every news outlet. Allowing advertisers to pay based on the individual story, rather than the reputation of the newsroom, exacerbates this trend. Eventually, it creates a hard divide: Stories that people feel like reading get all the ad money. Difficult stories don't get paid for.

      Thus, you end up with what TFA describes: Reporters scrambling to find any little angle that someone else might not have mentioned, any way to spin a story so it gets noticed, so their hamster wheels keep turning the little generators that keep the lights on.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
  9. Why burnout happens by Robotron23 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This article states a truth which has existed for the better part of a generation. University for journalism is closer to an arts course than a science one; you can get through it with a good grade easier relative to other subjects like math or science which require a specific mind to get through and even then can prove challenging and time consuming.

    As such graduates - which were never really 'taught' in a direct subject 100 years ago - emerge from university to a tough jobs market. Often they need work experience, plus a series of publications before say...a local newspaper will take them in as a low-level staff member. Due to constricting markets wages have fallen; graduates here in Britain are known to begin a job on as low a salary £11-12K (about $15-16K) per year with a slight rise when we enter the London Metropolitan borough.

    Assuming you're 22, talented, and have enjoyed much of your degree and the possibilities it presents (perhaps being a young idealist you picture yourself as a roving reporter, or a foreign correspondant in exotic locales etc) - the reality is that you will, for years, have to sit in an office all day long and basically reword stuff coming in on the AP/PA/Reuters wire - all day long. Far cry from your modules which presented you with an adventurous trade. That's perfectly true; you can be sodding Tintin in this business but if you're like that then you aren't young because you wouldn't have the money to travel or do in-depth investigative stuff; not to mention that geniune investigative work is rare in the ink and paper side of the trade.

    After a few months of copying out the wire, bored out of your mind, you've probably lost a lot of passion for the trade. You want out. The rose-tinted specs are off; and you are basically in a job where you are confined all day to an office with a huge workload that never ends because editors want the paper packed to the gills with stuff that's appearing in 10 other rags at minimum. If you have a bullying subeditor and/or editor it can be worse; the scare stories I've heard of breakdowns or young hacks in tears thanks to a dressing down in the ed's office are too numerous to all be fabrication.

    I saw this crap early on, and was able to take up other work to supplement my freelancing which is a labour of love. I was saying to a Guardian journo the other day...I smile whilst out getting a story in the July sunshine and cool breeze, the greenery and ordinary folks going about their day - and then contrast it to vigil at the PA wire, lukewarm coffee and petty office politics that haunt young 'churnalists' whose talent is squandered under a constant flow of drudgery.

    Would I trade my even-lower paid freelance job for £12 grand per year in the local press doing that? Not in this life.