After thirty-three years in newspapers, I bailed out in January. I’d had a good run, reporting events as varied as the 1981 air traffic controllers strike, mine fires in Pennsylvania, and the handover of the Panama Canal. As an editor, I had a front row seat on three wars, the impeachment of a president, and the 9/11 terror attacks. The coming of Rupert Murdoch was just too much, however, and I left the Journal for a policy post at the International Broadcasting Bureau, the agency that oversees the Voice of America, Radio Marti, and other government broadcasters. Yes, there is life after newspapers.
Examples die hard, though. My daughter is studying photography in college and hopes to land a job as a shooter on at least a medium-sized paper when she graduates. She’s pretty good, too, and just might do it. But I warned her not to make a career of it. That’s the advice I’d offer others as well. If you’re interested in journalism, even now, give it a shot. It’s a great way to learn about the world, develop communication and analytical skills, and provide a public service. But over the long haul, there’s more stability and better money to be made panhandling.
_________________________________
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.
I'm a lifer who believes we should go to our graves holding the power biggies' feet to the fire, but you made me smile. Thanks.
Syd Schanberg
Posted by Sydney Schanberg on Mon 4 Aug 2008 at 07:26 PM
Mr Schanberg, five days before the communists marched into Phnom Phen you wrote that "it is difficult to imagine how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone". Indeed, you described the Khmer Rouge as nationalist heroes fighting against the imperial bully.
If you believe that your mission is to hold those with power accountable, who holds you accountable?
Posted by Ralph C. on Tue 5 Aug 2008 at 12:14 AM
I got a laugh out of this--before it made me sad.
Posted by Karen on Tue 5 Aug 2008 at 10:19 AM
People like Schanberg are the reason readers distrust newspapers and part of the reason why a whole legion of fools went into journalism thinking they could change the world. Those same fools grew up to be the aging, clueless editors of today who use words like "hip" in discussions about how to attract younger readers through the latest gimmicks.
Winston, it makes me very happy to hear you give honest words of caution to students thinking about going into this field. The truth is that it was always difficult to make it to the top tier, but today, with every newspaper laying off reporters and editors, it's near impossible even if you're an amazing journalist.
I got out because of the terrible pay, the bad work environment, the ridiculously low morale in the newsroom and the stupidity of the top level editors.
I may have wasted more than a few years of my life in this field, but I'm glad I got out when I did. Hopefully your honest advice will prevent a few kids from making the same mistake and thinking they can make a career out of journalism, because unless they're well-connected or very lucky, they're going to be destitute and unappreciated in a miserable job.
Posted by Mike on Tue 5 Aug 2008 at 11:45 AM
I did a story for an alt in New Orleans about 15 years ago, panhandling in the French Quarter. After eight hours I made $40 panhandling. I was paid $25 to write the story.
Posted by Brian Clarey on Tue 5 Aug 2008 at 12:08 PM
As someone who "sells" to newspapers I have noticed a few things that have caused the demise of the daily newspaper.1.The desire for exclusivity and 2.The Internet. Faster flowing and freer information without too many handcuffs. 3.More information from the people and not the fat cat columnists who were writing to a "certain" audience and the publishers who kissed their audiences asses with journalism ethics damned. No wonder ad space is down 37% per year for the last few years in newspapers. Wrong business model is absolutley correct
Posted by Craig Ridley on Tue 5 Aug 2008 at 12:31 PM
You're dead on, Craig. As a journalist who spent 5 years on the business end, we simply refused to acknowledge that the Internet -- especially social networking -- has provided the masses with an unfiltered way to obtain the news they need. It's difficult to be a gatekeeper when your customers are tearing down the fence.
Had we been smarter, the industry would have torn down the ivory tower business model and developed a "traffic cop" model, where we assist the reading community in managing and moderating the flow of news and reader feedback.
Posted by Rich K on Tue 5 Aug 2008 at 01:10 PM
As a reporter who got tired of the newspaper death roll, I'm trying my hand at hyper-local citizen journalism on the Internet. I am now often the only reporter at local news events or find my-self explaining the basics to newbies who've been shoved out on the street with little training and even less editorial over sight.
And the Internet's not the answer either folks. It might be fast, but readers expect content to be free, and advertisers are very sloooooow to make the move.
Posted by Sue G on Tue 5 Aug 2008 at 06:25 PM