• Follow @prospect_uk
    • Home
    • About us
    • Contact Us
    • Date/Time
    • Login
    • Subscribe

    spacer

    Home
    • Home
    • Blogs
    • Politics
    • Economics & Finance
    • World
    • Arts & Books
    • Life
    • Science
    • Philosophy
    • Puzzles
    • Events
    • Home
    • Economics & Finance

    Now they’ve come for the journalists

    Journalists are struggling—just like everyone else

    by Tom Streithorst / March 8, 2013 / Leave a comment
    spacer

    Freelance journalists don’t earn as much as they once did, but nor does anyone else © Le Yéti

    A few days ago, Nate Thayer, a reasonably distinguished 52-year-old journalist, received an email from an editor at the Atlantic. She had read an article he had written and wondered if she could publish a shortened version. He said sure and asked what they paid. A bit surprised, she said they didn’t pay for reblogs but he would get “exposure.” Thayer, who half a decade previously had been offered a $125,000 a year staff job by that very same magazine, told her he didn’t need exposure, he needed money. He reprinted the entire email correspondence, triggering a firestorm in the journalistic community.

    The internet has transformed journalism and few in the industry are pleased. When I started working, consumers of news had a limited number of sources. If you wanted to know what was going on, you watched the BBC or you read the Telegraph or the Times. People working for those organisations had a captive audience, which meant their editors could afford to fly them around the world, put them up in a good hotel, pay outrageous expenses and also a decent wage.

    No more. Consumers of news are now spoiled for choice. They still read the Guardian or the BBC website but they can find countless other sources of information. And young journalists desperate to become the next Ezra Klein are happy to write for free. Even in war zones, you meet rich kids with a camera, travelling on their own dime, hoping to build their reputation. As consumers of news we are blessed. As producers of news, we are screwed.

    But this story is larger than just the plight of freelance journalists. The condition of all workers is harsher than it was in our parents’ day. It is not just blue-collar workers that are suffering. Lawyers, advertising creative directors, middle managers and even bankers are working much longer hours than they used to. Unless you are a professional athlete, the guy who had your job 20 years ago almost certainly made more money (in real terms), had more fun and didn’t work as hard. As consumers, we live like kings. Even people on council estates can afford flat-screen TVs that Gordon Gekko would have lusted after 20 years ago, but our work lives are ever less rosy. We work harder, with no job security, for less pay—but even during this recession, corporate profits remain healthy. Established professionals (like Thayer) who have worked for years to build a reputation see themselves edged out. Firms are looking for 22-22-22: 22-year-olds willing to work 22 hours a day for $22,000. Median inflation-adjusted male wages in the United States are lower now than they were in 1973.

    All the fuss in the blogosphere about the Thayer story shows that freelance journalists are frightened of the future. They have good reason. It is hard to see how journalists will ever again earn an enviable wage. But perhaps we only have ourselves to blame. As industrial jobs evaporated, few of us in the news business cared. Remember that famous quote about Nazi Germany. When they came for the miners, I remained silent because I wasn’t a miner. When they came for the air traffic controllers, I remained silent because I wasn’t an air traffic controller. When they came for the middle managers, I remained silent because I wasn’t a middle manager. When they came for the journalists, only the journalists spoke out—and guess what, nobody listened.

    I am old enough to have experienced the waning days of union power. One election day 25 years ago, working as a sound man for a New York TV station, I made $1,500 in a single shift. Back then, union penalties ensured you were paid extra for overtime, for holiday work, for missing your mandated hour-long lunch. I ran a few cables, twiddled a couple of dials and mostly sat in a chair, reading a book, counting my money, feeling like the luckiest man in the world. Good luck getting that gig today.

    Back in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, lots of us were paid more than we deserved. Jobs were easy to get. Firms treated their workers with respect. Everybody went home at 5pm. Reading Charles Bukowski today, it’s shocking to realise that although he was reprehensibly lazy and usually drunk, he never had any difficulty finding work. Economic growth was faster than it has been ever since and income distribution was much more equitable. Those days are long gone. It is not just journalists in trouble. All of us are getting screwed.

    Go to comments

    Related articles

    spacer
    Sarkozy turns to Turner and Tobin
    Brian Semple / September 22, 2009
    It appears that Nicolas Sarkozy has taken a leaf out of Prospect's book. Following last...
    spacer
    On the box: television comes to your games console
    Tom Chatfield / September 7, 2009
    I've been writing this month for Prospect on the remarkable success of British...
    Share with friends
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Google+
    • Pinterest

    Comments

    1. spacer
      Alan Hutchinson
      March 8, 2013 at 20:43
      Tom Palley puts this in a different light, in his book "From Financial Crisis to Stagnation". See also www.thomaspalley.com/?p=232. Put very simply, he argues that developed economies grew for the 30 years from 1945 because investment raised productivity, and the profits of increasing productivity were paid to the workers. They spent them, so consumption grew along with productivity and there was an incentive to continue investing. From about 1980, for the next 30 years, profits went to capitalists instead. The workers were squeezed. Economies did not collapse immediately because workers went on spending, but the money they spent came from borrowing (e.g. as mortgages) and asset price inflation. The resulting bubbles and debts caused the crash of 2008. There is more to it than that, but I think that is the main aspect of his argument. The change in working practices hurt not just workers but the whole economy, right across the developed world.
      Reply
    2. spacer
      Alan Robinson
      March 9, 2013 at 05:35
      "It is not just journalists in trouble. All of us are getting screwed." World war 2 hostilities ended in 1945, but it took the world several decades more to come to terms with what had happened. The comparitive affluence of the period 1985 - 2005 was however just an unsustainable bubble fuelled by cheap and abundant oil, the creation of huge piles of debt, and globalization. The 1985 - 2005 era was not normal; it was abnormal, and developments of that time could not continue unabated, as we now see. "All of us are getting screwed?" I don't doubt it, but that simply means that we are returning to normality. Most of us have almost always been screwed. Michel's Iron law of Oligarchy isn't called an iron law for nothing.
      Reply
    3. spacer
      Michael Goldfarb
      March 11, 2013 at 08:31
      With you, Tom, most of the way. But you are wrong when you say no one covered the miners or air traffic controllers. Of the latter I am certain as I was just starting out then at the Washington Post and Reagan's War on them was a major story. The reason they came for us - got me in the prime of my career - and no one cared is that while we were practicing journalism that covered things like the destruction of unions, outside our line of sight a well-funded assault on our legitimacy was being waged on talk-radio. When the web hit our "leaders' decide they were managing decline, rather than fighting back against the 3 decades of propoaganda that deligitimized our work. it doesn't help that the new generation coming into journalism did not during the course of their education - personal & public - learn the history of working people's struggles that led to unions and so on. As you rightly say, they mostly come from more moneyed sections of society and their world view reflects the concerns they learned of at their parents' dining tables (although I know one or two former students of mine who are committed to the journalism I practiced)
      Reply
    4. spacer
      Eric Garland
      March 12, 2013 at 16:17
      This is a good article, though I would take issue with one statement: "Back in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, lots of us were paid more than we deserved." I beg to differ. Back in the middle 20th Century, a global society sick of Depression and World War and flush with cheap energy reserves for a brief period of time defeated its natural tendency toward economical feudalism and shared profits with the workers that helped produce them. We are still benefiting from the historically-unprecedented advances in public health, domestic peace, and even geopolitical stability that resulted. Today, we are swinging back toward the logic that inherited wealth and faux-meritocratic social position is somehow a positive thing. It is tragic to watch. We were not paid too much. We are now paid too little. Woe betide us if we choose to relive the late 19th and early 20th centuries. We know what comes next.
      Reply
    5. spacer
      Peter Maguire
      March 12, 2013 at 19:42
      For those of us who worked in SE Asia during the 1990s, Nate Thayer was significantly more than a "reasonably distinguished journalist." Simply put, he should not have survived his bouts of malaria, much less his decade long dance with the Khmer Rouge. Thayer outworked and outfoxed numerous high profile journalists to get the only interview with Pol Pot. Nate's greatest flaw was that he spent far too much time on the front lines reporting at great risk and not enough time in NYC, DC, or London, time dining out on his past glories. The author's assertion about Charles Bukowski is also erroneous. He never had a difficult time finding work because he had the good sense to support his writing and drinking with a day job--he worked at the post office until he was 49. "I have one of two choices – stay in the post office and go crazy," wrote Bukowski, "or stay out here and play at writer and starve. I have decided to starve."
      Reply
    6. spacer
      Dave
      March 13, 2013 at 01:48
      A muddled, whinging article. Who is "They?" Nazis? The establishment? Empowered consumers? All of the above? Maybe such distinctions are lost from high atop the pedestal Streithorst considers journalism's due, I don't know. But the vague, sloppy jeremiad lamenting he-knows-not-what is symptomatic of a big reason for the profession's demise: when everybody can do it, nobody finds it worth paying for. I'm not unsympathetic, being a 49-year-old advertising writer who finds himself constantly passed over for younger talent. But as other commenters have noted, we can no longer mistake a remarkable prosperity as the traditional norm. Struggle is the traditional norm, and it's back with a vengeance.
      Reply
    7. spacer
      Steven McConnell
      March 13, 2013 at 05:06
      Times have changed and Nate Thayer hasn't. That's why he is upset - he is living in the past, wishing for his "good old times" to return. The journalists have done it to themselves. Young kids now aren't interested in reading their political analysis and news of yet another crisis in the Middle East. Young people today want to read about how to build their dreams online, how to build something that makes a difference and how to have a job which not only pays well, but is connected to their purpose, too. That's why online blogs like Mashable are blooming, and newspapers aren't. You're right about one thing - no-one needs a journalist that sits on his ass and gets paid $1,500 for it. That's not inspiring, remarkable or sustainable - it's a drain on the system and it doesn't feed anyone's soul, either. Question is, why are some people still lamenting about that? Steven
      Reply
    8. spacer
      Claus
      March 14, 2013 at 20:52
      Tom, I think the constantly improvement of better jobs in the past is a good argument. And better paying jobs are being created, looking at the world as a whole (a lot of people are, and have been in recent years, moving towards major cities outside the west, in return for very significantly higher salaries), and up to some amount in the west (thinking about e.g. the technology sector). I do not believe the current recession is as much a result of capitalism wanting to share less, but that as the world develops, a structural change is taking place. The west is losing it's pedestal, resulting in worsening jobs, and more competition. This is more than made up for with the improvement of people's lives in countries like Brazil, India and China, but works out badly for us. I also believe you can see a similar thing happening 40 years ago. If you were a banker in 1970 instead of 1930, I am quite convinced you had to work harder, for a lower salary (compared to the median). This is because fewer people could become bankers in 1930, as your parental wealth was much bigger of a factor than in 1970. We are now (starting to) see a similar trend, but instead of being on the poorer side, who's lives are improving, we have made it onto the wealthy side, so perceive this change as a negative one for us.
      Reply
    9. spacer
      james c
      April 20, 2013 at 20:57
      Yes, the economics of journalism have changed completely.
      Reply

    Leave a comment

    You can log in to post a comment under your subscriber name.

    Human verification - please type the words/numbers from the image:

    gipoco.com is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its contents. This is a safe-cache copy of the original web site.