Journalism should be more than a spiffy, interactive forum from which to vent. Interviews with newsmakers and their constituents, and access to documents and other primary sources, should define journalism. So should the respectful, but constant questioning of authority. Where you lack either the investigative resources or the skepticism, you get lies of omission or propaganda. That doesn’t change—no matter how slickly you package things.
A decade ago, I gave a speech at a college graduation. I told the graduates that corporate ownership of media, particularly publicly traded media conglomerates, had changed the equation for journalism and its consumers. You could have an excellent product with adequate profits, I said. Or you could have an adequate product with excellent profits. Perhaps that is no longer the case. Maybe online niche publications represent the future. However this proceeds, it is the content, not the platform that delivers it, that represents the greatest challenge. As long as economic uncertainty, unreasonable profit margins, staff cuts, and low wages mark the boundaries of journalism… well, you get what you pay for.
As for me, I now earn my living doing public relations for the University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine. I work for great people and an important public institution. Yet I still dream of returning to journalism. Literally. My post-traumatic stress doesn’t manifest itself in nightmares from which I awake sweating and screaming. My PTS comes in the near-constant images of reporting and writing that haunt my sleep.
The dreams tell me something. Whether anyone ever again chooses to pay me professionally, I will always be a newspaper columnist.
_________________________________
The steady drip of layoffs and buyouts, slowly desiccating once-vibrant newsrooms around the country, has also produced a reservoir of anger, sadness, fear, uncertainty—even some cautious optimism here and there—among reporters and editors who invested years, decades in some cases, of their lives to print journalism. We’ve asked anyone so inclined to channel these emotions, not into rant—although there will be a bit of that—but rather into reflection on what went wrong, and where we might go from here. We will publish one per day, under the headline “Parting Thoughts.” All of the letters we publish will be collected here.
- 1
- 2
Spencer had me going until he he said Politico does good journalism. It doesn't. It's filled with goddpi, it's ad pages come from lobbysists and it's bankrolled by a Bush-y. Maybe Spencer needs a new line of work.
Posted by Rich on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 10:11 AM
Spencer, a great old colleague, deserves whatever he wants. You, Rich, need to read what you write before you hit 'send.'
Posted by Daniel Rubin on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 10:18 AM
Just an excellent read from every angle, Spencer.
"As long as economic uncertainty, unreasonable profit margins, staff cuts, and low wages mark the boundaries of journalism… well, you get what you pay for."
Spot on.
Posted by Skalka on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 11:15 AM
Jim, I've followed your work since I lived in Newport News. After I moved to Colorado and found you'd be moving to Denver, I was so delighted. Your columns were (and still are) incredibly researched and insightful. It's too bad that economic conditions are as bad as they are to warrant silencing such a voice.
I'll always remember the fun times we spent covering the 49th House District race when Welker announced he wouldn't run again (I was working for the Loveland paper). Good times.
Posted by Kate Martin on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 11:34 AM
Jim,
I have very fond memories of my former deskmate from Newport News (yikes, that was a long time ago.)I'm sorry you've been swept up in all this mess. Send me an email and let's connect.
Nancy
Posted by Nancy on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 12:23 PM
Sorry, bit I'm not crying yet, Jim. No one is owed a job in journalism, and too many of us got too comfortable with our upper-middle class salaries and the let the country go to hell around us. The new breed of no-benefits, no-job-security journos will better reflect the true state of our economy and perhaps do a better job of reporting on it. Let's hope.
Posted by Dissenter on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 12:34 PM
Owed a job??? Upper-middle class salaries?? Who are you talking about? Journalists NEVER get into this biz for the money. Believe me, there isn't much to be had. EVERY rumination and lament on the demise of our industry talks only about the role we play as the 4th estate. You don't need to be desperate to write a good story. Jim, good luck. As a copy editor within the Tribune Dark Star, my time is seemingly numbered as well.
Posted by Theo on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 12:51 PM
If there is an "upper middle class salary" among "us," then I've been working for the wrong newspaper for the past 30 years. I suspect "dissenter" is not of the ink. There are lots of blue collars out there in the newsrooms, and upper middle class we ain't.
(And we surely aren't going to be rich by selling our newspaper stock, either. Funny, our bosses seemed to sell theirs at about the right time.)
Posted by George Hesselberg on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 01:02 PM
You don't deserve a livable wage, benefits and job security!
You deserve what the market can handle. Produce a product that people are willing to pay for and MAYBE you'll get all of that. Right now, journalism is not a profitable product on it's own.
Posted by Big Tuna on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 01:42 PM
Well said, Big Tuna. I'll also point out that Mr. Spencer should be giving thanks for those $100K content channel producers-- they are the ones tasked with figuring out how to get distribution and revenue for columnists like him when fewer are reading the requisite 21 column inches, ragged right.
Posted by Big Tuna Fan on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 01:58 PM
None of us came to journalism wanting to get rich. But why is it wrong for us to want a little life stability in exchange for the long hours? Why shouldn't we be able to pay rent and go to the doctor once in a while in exchange for keeping an eye on government and big biz? Heaven forbid if you want or have children.
Jim, I feel like I'm in the same place as you, knowing inside I'm a reporter though my paycheck and title disappeared when my news company eliminated my position .
Posted by Lauren F on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 02:00 PM
Now you all understand what the rest of America has been going through. Is it really news to you that the current economy has no room for people who demand living wages and benefits? How sad--newsrooms today must be acting as time capsules.
Posted by Dissenter on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 02:09 PM
Lauren F, what the f* did you just do with your post? What's with the funky link in the second graf?
And you say you want to make a decent living in our industry...
Start by understanding the basics, which in addition to your journalism skills, is now led by what should be these priorities: getting it online first, to print second. That means, understand how to do the simplest of tasks, like a properly linked comment.
Posted by Big Tuna Fan on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 02:16 PM
As for being "of the ink," I've worked for 15 newspapers in seven states and four countries, and still make a "living" in print journalism. But I have drastically scaled back my financial expectations, chosen not to have kids and thank the gods every day that I have a job. It's people who think that the profession owes them a house in the burbs, two kids in private schools and a late-model Toyota who piss me off, and who have ruined this profession with their entitlement and complacency.
Posted by Dissenter on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 02:19 PM
This is why Jim may never get another job in journalism:
"The late nights and occasional weekends I put in, the blog I maintained in deference to the burgeoning online audience—".
Occasional weekends? In deference to? OK, then.
Posted by This Says It All on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 02:27 PM
This is why Jim may never get another job in journalism:
"The late nights and occasional weekends I put in, the blog I maintained in deference to the burgeoning online audience—".
Occasional weekends? In deference to? OK, then.
Posted by This Says It All on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 02:29 PM
Excellent piece, Jim. As a longtime journalist and a former colleague of Jim's at The Post, I admire his writing and abilities.
Yes, it's a tough economy and journalists have to deal with that just like everyone else. But as media companies downsize, it's scary to think of a time when there is no one to dig out injustices that those in power would rather bury (think the CNN exposure of Katrina relief supplies going to those WITH decent jobs instead of to the victims for whom the supplies were intended).
Posted by Paul on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 03:19 PM
I've known Jim Spencer and respected him since we were newspaper reporters in Norfolk, Va. more than 30 years ago. And I agree with most of what he writes about. Some of the things he experienced have happened to me, too. For example, I was fired from editing a regional business magazine for undisclosed "business reasons" but, in fact, after having had serious ethical differences on journalism issues with my new publisher.
The one thing that bothers me about Jim's column is that the Internet has changed journalism forever whether we are reporters, editors or bean counters. We have to reinvent ourselves whether we want to or not.
For example, I was a fan of "Spencer.Speaks" but it seemed to target the Average Joe Sixpacks of Greater Denver. His Net effort had little appeal beyond that limited audience. Had Jim targetted a more specialized and sustainable niche, or maybe even a much broader one, he might be still doing journalism and not PR. The trick is reinventing and marketing ourselves. We can't rely on some mossback newspaper execs to do that for us the way we used to.
Goozer
Posted by Goozer on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 03:32 PM
Aww...life is so unfair!
Posted by Quit Whining on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 04:48 PM
So Goozer brings up an interesting talking point, whether s/he knows it or not.
I haven't read Spencer's column, so I have no way of knowing about its relevance or appeal. But I do wonder if there was discussion with management before he was let go from the paper? Did management/his editor have the discussions about building audience, maintaining relevance, etc.? Or did they let him continue to write toward what Goozer called "Average Joe Sixpacks" without guidance?
If Spencer was writing as a columinst to a diminishing audience and his topic matter was more geared toward news stories than opinion writing, then it seems there were a couple of paths management could have taken:
1. Come to a common understanding of how the column needed to evolve to target either a) a niched audience that could build revenue or b) a larger, general audience to build and retain readership. By far the toughest route, but actually the fairest to the journalist because it gives him power to change and accountability to do so.
2. Come to a common understanding that Spencer might be too expensive for the type of work he was producing and the audience/revenue returns he was getting. If Spencer was unwilling to evolve, then base his salary on the column's true value. Harsh, but real.
Posted by Tracy on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 05:37 PM
Such an eloquent cacophony to accompany the sinking of our titanic.
And now, back to Drudge...
Posted by Spiderperson on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 05:47 PM
So we rail against corporate, bottom-line journalism, then complain when nobody can afford to pay us? Sorry, but the ink in my veins always has me looking for holes in the story.
As for all those writing awards: I have my share, too, Jim, but never thought they were worth the plastic frames they came in. Just sops thrown to us by publishers' associations in lieu of pay and benefits. Yeah, have another free light beer at the newsies' convention, folks, on the boss's tab. Urp.
Posted by Tommy W. on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 06:07 PM
Hey Tommy W., I was an award-winning columnist too!
It makes me think of the "Friends" episode where Joey tells Gunther that he can't possibly take a smaller role after being the star on a soap. And Gunther (now a manager of a coffee bar) replies, "Yeah, I used to be XXX on 'All My Children'."
Getting the point here, Spencer and other navel gazers? Stop whining, adapt or get out. Wait, scratch the "stop whining" part. We're journalists, therefore we bitch and moan... so keep on whining if ya want. Just adapt to the reality already or get out.
Posted by cherie on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 06:25 PM
Tracy,
With all due respect, I am fully aware of the point I was making, but I'm not sure if you understood it.
I was not referring to Spencer's old audience at the Denver Post and how the Post's management should or should not have dealt with it. That's history. Screw the Post.
I was specifically referring to developing a new, Web-based audience -- one that could be supported through e-advertising or whatever. Simply transferring what you think of as your audience form Denver Post Joe Six-Pack to a Web-based audience of the same simply won't work. For decades, most newspapers' advertising -- from used cars to grocery store specials to deparment stores to classified -- was directed precisely at Joe and Josphine Sixpack. No more.
Jim is such a talented writer that he could have expanded his electronic-based writings to reach a national audience and maybe that might have worked. Or, he could have used a rifle, instead of a shotgun, approach to a specific, niche audience.
The point you seem to be missing, Tracy, whether you know it or not, is that as journalists adjust to the new Web-based reality they (a) must think and act independently and as entrepreneurs and (b) come up with business and marketing skills that we never had to use before and (c) exploit those skills as individual operators on the Web.
Hope you understand now.
Goozer.
Posted by goozer on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 07:24 PM
I guess the biggest problem I have with most journalists these days is they think they have the right (and their paper has a right) to defend democracy until the end of time regardless of whether or not anyone cares.
If it cost more to make your product that people are willing to pay for it, it's called a hobby...not a business.
Classified dollars were "subsidizing" journalism for years. With that money gone and never coming back, the entire business model of journalism is in question.
Either die a slow death or go "not for profit".
Posted by Big Tuna on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 07:29 PM
Cherie, Roger-that, me too. Hah.
Believing that writing awards will protect you from layoffs is like believing that Listerine will protect you from burglars.
Tuna: What you actually understand about the economics of the newspaper industry would fit into a thimble, with adequate space left over for your brain cells.
I.e., You say classified ads "subsidize" news ... so tell me, how much would you pay for an "all-classifieds" newspaper?
Right. Me, too. And you fail even to mention display advertising, which is the real diamond mine.
Posted by Tommy W. on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 07:45 PM
Me my thimble are going to stand over there and actually make some money. Good luck with your journalism hobby.
Posted by Big Tuna on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 08:17 PM
On that we agree, Tuna. Nothing wrong with making money.
30 years of that "hobby" allowed me to put my kids through college and retire at 55 with a pension, health care and a *very* nice equities portfolio. Won't be needing to supplement that with PR jobs or teaching at the community college.
Hope you do as well. Good luck.
Posted by Tommy w. on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 08:44 PM
Whether you agree with Jim's point of view (and his take on his present circumstances)or not, one question remains:
Is the Denver Post a better newspaper after jettisoning him?
As a daily reader, I'd say no.
It's pretty boring. And shrinking.
It editorially supported GW Bush in the last election -- a decision for which it still hasn't recanted.
And has fallen into the trap of "reporting" fluff and feathers over hard journalism too often.
Discount and belittle what Jim is saying all you want.
And watch as more good, dedicated reporters, editorial cartoonists and columnists are cast aside.
To prop up the bottom line.
While owners wonder, in their self-imposed, self-absorbed oblivious state, why circulation is dropping.
For a case study in how newspapers and newspapering has changed in the past 20 years, look to Knight-Ridder.
How the bad guys finally won.
tb
Posted by Tony B on Wed 23 Jul 2008 at 11:09 PM
Politico is specialized, semi-trade publication. And that is where a lot of the more stable jobs will be both in print and online. Most reporters have in-depth knowledge of topics that are valuable but they don't know how capitalize on that value once they are separated from a newspaper. Somehow there has to be way for that knowledge to be developed commercially independent of newspapers. Newspapers are being sunk by legacy costs and not by reporters. But blogs (really online publications) that adopt niche areas, even local ones, are starting to make money. There has to be way to transfer newsroom subject matter expertise to local formats that, similar to trade publications, offer specialized, in-depth expertise on certain topic areas to committed audiences.
Posted by toughtimes on Thu 24 Jul 2008 at 12:30 AM
Jim is telling the truth, but not quite the whole truth.
Jim was nosing around in the job market before he got fired. (Maybe he sensed trouble ahead?)
He was offered the job of metro columnist at The Virginian-Pilot, one of his alma maters and the largest and best metro in the state.
He turned it down on salary issues. I do not know what they offered Jim, but I do know that columnists there have made as much as the $80K range -- Jim would recognize the names Maddry, Friddell, Bonko, Addis and Dougherty, four of whom have since retired.
Of course, now that paper's on the market and cutting back staff, so maybe he made the right choice after all. Either way, wish him well.
Posted by Full disclosure on Thu 24 Jul 2008 at 09:23 AM
Jim, thanks for your commentary. It behooves many of us, especially those earlier on in our careers, to learn from these experiences. I hope you find the peace you are searching for, you deserve it.
Posted by Young Journalist on Thu 24 Jul 2008 at 07:56 PM
I have seen this lament in way too many forms and from way too many people. And I say "way too many" not because it shouldn't be happening - but because there is a way to keep being a journalist, and serving your community, and making a decent living. Start a community news website. Most communities don't have one - and if they do, its quality may be middling, as well-meaning amateurs are often those (bless them!) giving it a try. If you are trying to do it in the "newspaper column" mode - one beautifully written piece per week, or maybe two - you won't make it. But if you truly want to rustle up and present the information your community needs, big stories and small stories, you will get an audience, and you will get enough advertising dollars to live on. You can probably even start building it now while continuing in PR till you are ready to leap. I used to work in "old media" too. Community news is the first thing I've ever done that really mattered.
Posted by WSB on Thu 24 Jul 2008 at 08:07 PM
Full Disclosure (who doesn't even disclose his name) needs to check with Virginian-Pilot editor Denis Finley about whether he ever offered me a columnist's job. He did not, neither before my lay-off nor after my layoff.
Posted by Jim Spencer on Fri 25 Jul 2008 at 01:32 PM
Full disclosure: I read and appreciated Jim's column here in Virginia regularly before I knew him personally. Later he became my son's soccer coach, and eventually he and his family became friends of my family. So with my personal bias, I won't join the debate, such as it is when many debaters lack the civic responsibility to identify themselves. But I'll offer two cents' worth about online anonymity via ths prediction: When journalism does finally resurrect itself in some form, a form that reader online participation will maybe enhance, something important will be rediscovered from the dying age of newsprint. As editors of letters pages know, anonymity is at odds with responsibility and quality in journalism -- as shown above, where Spencer's serious discussion got sidetracked in a way that speaks for itself. Thanks. Steven T. Corneliussen, Poquoson, Virginia
Posted by Steven T. Corneliussen on Fri 29 Aug 2008 at 09:38 PM
Spencer you are a left wing looney, who like a lot of so called journalists today skewed the truth in all of your articles and never told both sides of a story. I was very happy to see you leave the Denver Post and only wish you would have taken your pot smoking hippy friend Littwin and the racist Johnson with you. Reading this article also impressed me with your modesty - - NOT !!!
Posted by Tired of the Propaganda on Sun 20 Sep 2009 at 11:47 AM