If you’re a journalist and you are angry about something — the state of journalism, your job, your boss, the people you cover, etc — then you should head on over to AngryJournalist.com and leave your thoughts.

The blog sprung up a few days ago and appears to have been taking off the past few days. Right now there are 282 angry comments, and I’m willing to bet that the site will pick up considerably after all the recent press it has gotten in the blogosphere.

The site is a sort of Post Secret for journalism, where journalists have been leaving their gripes about anything and everything. I found those gripes to be incredibly fascinating.

Post No. 277 deals with how journalists are being asked to do more and more, especially in the realm of multimedia:

I’m angry because on Saturday I was shooting video with my left hand and stills with my right. That, and our three-person staff is expected to produce over 700 pointless, wretched videos this year.

I love multimedia, but why do we think the public will just love the crap we churn out in a couple of hours?

The answer is that the public will not love that crap. The danger with news organizations, especially newspapers, trying to enter the video market with low-cost, rapidly produced video is that those videos have to compete against YouTube and all the other video sharing sites out there. Frankly, people expect better-than-YouTube-quality video from professional companies.

Video is good. Bad video is very bad. People and advertisers expect quality from professional news organizations.

If we can’t make better content than 15-year-olds than we should probably find new jobs. I’m just saying.

Post No. 272 seems to not care what users think:

I’m angry at my coworker who thinks his awful high school basketball videos that lack basic storytelling are good enough, because they get the most “clicks”.

If you would just stop worrying about “clicks” and just do the job you were assigned, which is production, not video, then our online department would be so much better.

It’s hard for me to judge the quality of these videos without seeing them, but I think there is something very powerful about stat tracking and what users find compelling. If users are watching these videos than that’s a good sign. At the end of the day, what’s important is that users find our content compelling.

We do not make content for ourselves. That’s a great way to find yourself irrelevant. Don’t get into a business to make products for yourself, because you’ll rapidly find yourself out of business (OMG, no way newspapers aren’t doing well lately?).

Plus, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, people love high school sports. They absolutely love them. Some newspapers are finally starting to realize what many of us have known for years.

Post No. 265 represents everything that is wrong with some journalists today:

As a journalist with decades of experience, I have broken a number of good stories. I am angry that I have never managed to do enough of them in one year - or chose the wrong ones for my portfolio or been cursed with judges unsympathetic to a particular genre - to have won an award of any kind.

Some whose performance I consider less good and certainly without my “track record” seem to waltz into the awards ceremonies on the strength of one good and two what I consider unremarkable pieces.

I’ll probably end my working life being given a John Wayne-style “lifetime achievement” award. Or maybe not even that. Or maybe they’ll wait till I’m dead.

Yes, my blood is boiling. We do not — I repeat do not — make content for ourselves or award competitions. We make content for our readers and users. I don’t submit my content for awards competitions, because if I did, I’d start caring more about how to win awards and less about how to win readers and users.

Post No. 241 hit on a major problem with most newspaper Web sites:

I’m angry because my company, just like the rest of the industry, wants me to do more with less. They’ve said, “To hell with quality. Let’s just fill the website with as much shit as possible.”

I’ve written about the Wall of News before, but I guess I have to repeat it. If you put too much content on your news site — specifically your homepage — you will overwhelm users and they will leave your site. Usability is paramount for any good Web site, and most newspaper Web sites are completely unusable because they are overflowing with content, ads and advertorial junk.

Quantity does not equal quality.

Post No. 310 is yet another journalists who has contempt for the very people who consume our content:

I’m also angry because idiots in the public are turning to Web sites to get “news,” which is not written by people with expertise or any kind of journalistic background, and is not overseen or checked by anyone. They aren’t answerable to anybody, and the public is lapping up their stuff and thinking they’re getting good info.

Web news can be just as accurate, if not more accurate, than newspaper content. But let’s back it up here. Never, ever turn on the public — our consumers — because they are the ones who ultimately pay our pay checks and determine what is and what isn’t good journalism.

I am convinced that most journalists lack basic business sense. Smart business people (and we’re in the news business) aim to please their customers, not berate them for being “idiots.” That’s ridiculous.

I’d fire the person who wrote post No. 310 in a heartbeat.

There is so much gold on this blog that I might need to write a post a week about the best comments.

Can people who were in this industry before the advent of the Web be the ones to usher in the change that newspapers so desperately need?

Aren’t those the kind of people who still think the old ways of doing things can still work? That all we need to do is buckle down a little?

Do newspapers need leaders at the top who come from a different background? Do newspapers need leaders who aren’t tethered to the past or the old ways of doing things?