Newpapers should pay more for additional journalism skills

Newspapers need to start paying employees extra for each in-demand skill they have.

Other industries do it. For instance, the CIA pays new hires more if they know a critical language like Arabic or Mandarin — tens of thousands more a year. And if you don’t know a critical language, but are willing to learn, the CIA will put you through courses.

Once you reach a certain proficiency, you’ll get paid more. Obviously, most people who join the CIA have certain core skills: knowledge of foreign affairs, strong writing and analytical abilities, ability to pass an in depth background check (many applicants cannot), etc. Most people who apply to the CIA do not know a critical language, which is why the CIA offers big incentives to people who do.

This is exactly what newspapers should do. As much as many people say that all journalists should have online and new media skills, we know that the vast majority do not. That’s fine as long as they have basic reporting skills (basic as in print-only reporting) and a strong grasp of the English language.

But newspapers should pay employees and offer perspective employees incentives to have more than just traditional journalism skill. We could start a reporter out at $30,000 a year if he has basic journalism skills. If that candidate is proficient with CSS and HTML, add $5,000 more on that. If a candidate is proficient with audio and video editing, add another $5,000 (many journalists make less than $30,000 by the way, which is embarrassing and a major reason why there is so little quality journalism).

Flash? $5,000. If existing employees have a problem with this, they should be offered training. If they hit a certain level of proficiency they’ll get the extra $5,000 for each skill. This of course is not happening.

In fact, many employees with these skills are poorly paid and looked down on by “real journalists.” How many papers have talented Web people who are poorly paid and basically only serve to repurpose print content? Far too many.

The reality is that everyone at a newspaper should know how to write. That’s the basic. We need to start paying more for people with additional skills above the standard set.

If journalists knew that each of these skills would net them a higher salary, more would take it upon themselves to learn these skills. Most new media skills aren’t hard to learn. But what’s the real incentive?

Instead of telling people they should learn new skills because the Web is the future or that those people not learning these skill are out of touch, we should do what most real industries do: pay people.

If you haven’t gotten a raise that matches inflation in years, what is your incentive to spend your time and money to learn something new? There is none.

If publishers and top editors expect to get talented and qualified people in the coming years, they’ll have to pay more for people who have more in-demand skills. This also means dramatically rethinking the compensation offered to standard reporters.

Not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone is worth the same to a company. And this whole idea of trying to do more with less is basically waving a white flag. I know I can make more money with my Web skills (and my foreign affairs knowledge) in other industries, and other young Web people like me know the same.

Newspapers are for-profit companies, not charities. So, don’t expect your employees to be charity workers. If you don’t pay your skilled employees properly, they’ll go somewhere else.

And then you’ll really be hurting for money.

This entry was posted in State of journalism. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.yonigreenbaum.com Yoni Greenbaum

    Pat – Great idea. As you know, I support the notion of newspapers taking their hirings more seriously and acting more like pure-play businesses. My question about your proposal is how would you recommend newspapers assess that people have a skill versus just claiming it? And how would you do that without increasing the cost of hiring and/or extending the time it takes to hire?

  • http://www.patthorntonfiles.com pat

    I’ve had to take writing and editing tests at newspapers despite graduating with honors in journalism. I’ve never applied for a copy editing position but had to take copy editing tests.

    Well, how about giving people new media tests? I think we could do that or have people show us their previous work. I’m not sure if I would need to take a test to prove my CSS abilities. I could just show people sites I have built from the ground up. But the point is, people would have to demonstrate one way or the other that they actually have the skills they say they do.

  • http://hbo3.com/ Howard Owens

    To paraphrase Mr. Curley, it’s mindset, not skill set.

    Markets dictate salaries, not arbitrary skill measurements. Skills that are more valued by the marketplace to demand higher salaries. For people who expand their skill set beyond gathering a few facts and putting them on paper, there is a pretty robust marketplace that could use both their journalistic skills and technical acumen.

    But that said, in an information economy, where knowledge workers with the right set of attributes are at a premium — the people who make the most money will be the people willing to work the hardest, be the most entrepreneurial and have a positive outlook.

    Mindset, not skill set.

    That said, every place I’ve ever worked, the people with online tech skills make more money than work-a-day reporters.

    We don’t need any formal “take a test to make more money” sort of set up — people who are ambitious will make more money. That’s how capitalism works and how it should work.

  • http://www.patthorntonfiles.com pat

    Howard,

    I don’t disagree with the mindset argument. I want journalists with the mindset that they can learn and do anything. I want people willing to tell stories in the mediums that matter to our users. Having a mindset goes a long way.

    But you can have a great mindset and still not have skills (and some people will never be good at certain skills, no matter their mindsets). At the end of the day I need people who have skills and who are willing to learn new skills.

    It’s good that the places you have worked at pay more for online skills. That’s how it supposed to be. Some places actually pay their online people pretty poorly and others pay them the same as standard journalists.

    In fact, I’d be willing to say that is how it is at the majority of newspapers. I’m not saying those are places you’d want to work, or that those are places that are going anywhere, but it is the reality on the ground. And those places will probably really be struggling the next few years.

    But back to my analogy. The CIA pays for both mindset and skill set. They want people with a mindset that is willing to learn new things. Thus once you learn something new because of your awesome mindset, you have added to your skill set and paycheck, but they also pay more for people who come in with advanced skill sets, because they need them.

    And frankly if you come to the CIA with an awesome skill set, they probably won’t care if you have the mind set to learn anything new. They need your skills. The CIA realizes that if they don’t pay for these skill sets they simply won’t get them.

    That’s how paper’s should operate. Most don’t. The numbers I threw out above were arbitrary, but they serve to show that people with additional skill sets should get paid for those skills. And newspapers should stop complaining that their workers don’t have the skills that are necessary and start compensating. That’s how other industries work, and that’s probably a large reason why journalism is struggling.

    Editors and publishers want people to learn new skills to help their bottom line, and yet those same editors and publishers do nothing to help a journalist’s bottom line.

    My brother’s work is helping to pay for his MBA, and many of my friends receive tuition reimbursement and training from their jobs. That’s how the rest of the world works, and that’s why other industries have more talented workers than journalism does.

  • http://none Ted McGee

    Two things:

    1) I don’t find the argument that paying the bakers more money will create a tastier cake particularly compelling. But, naturally, I’m open to sensible rebuttal.

    2) “Newspapers are no longer an effective medium for educating or edifying an uninterested public” -Posner, ’07 (random, I know, but still ever-relevant)

    Time for me to poop :)

  • http://char1ievick.wordpress.com Charlie

    Ted,

    1. I think this is to put the horse before the cart. It’s not that paying someone more makes them better. If you’re better, you get paid more. You can’t give a crap baker a lot of money and expect a not-crap cake. But you can’t expect to pay a quality baker the same you pay a shite baker.

    2. “Says Posner.” Me, ’08. (I don’t know who Posner is. I mean, haven’t there been people declaring newspapers worthless since radio, if not before? DIdn’t people say novels weren’t literature at some point? Besides, I’m not interested in working for a paper. I want to work in News.)

blog comments powered by Disqus