Can newspapers keep their smart young people?

Posted by on . 14 comments.

It’s an important, tough-to-answer question.

I’ve said before that many of the top journalism students never go into journalism. Instead, they choose more lucrative fields that have more stable futures. I can’t blame them — that’s probably the smart decision.

Still, many very smart people go into journalism. Are newspapers capable of keeping them, especially the talented Web people? I’m not so sure.

I already know several talented young journalists who have left the field. I think the fundamental issue (besides the horrible pay, hours and uncertain future) is that newspapers traditionally have been very rigid organizations.

Producing the “daily miracle” required a great day of institutional control. It required many layers of management and a rigid structure to ensure a daily product was produced on a medium — print — that is not a good daily medium.

The Web is the opposite. It’s instantaneous. It’s open.

The Web is immediate. Change can happen in the blink of an eye. The Web is an incredible platform for innovation.

Therein lies the problem. Will talented, young technologists really want to stick around institutions that are often risk-averse and slow to adopt new technology? Those people could find a lot more freedom to build cool and useful stuff in other fields.

William M. Hartnett thinks that newspapers have too many managers and too rigid of a management structure to keep around a lot of talented, entrepreneurial young people:

I, for one, am not terribly patient about the changes that we all know need to happen. I’m guessing quite a few people much smarter than me are even less patient and, dare I say it, far more entrepreneurial. Do we seriously expect talented, impatient, entrepreneurial young people to put up with our strictly hierarchical newsrooms?

“Great idea, whiz kid. A really killer app. Now just take it to your boss. Then up one level of management. Then another. And another. Just a couple more levels to go now. Whoops, looks like you’re not even being invited to the meetings anymore.”

Right. That just screams innovation.

For me, I think I love journalism too much to seriously consider another field at this point in my life. But that doesn’t go for every journalist. For many, journalism is just another job.

And if working for a newspaper is just another job, a person won’t hesitate to take another one in another field if its a better situation. That’s a major issue for the future of newspapers and journalism.

  • http://www.themodernjournalist.com Brad King

    Retaining journalists isn’t the issue. If that’s all media companies believe they need, they are toast.

    The question is this: how do you attract smart, tech-savvy people who understand how technology works — and business models operate online — when Google et all already exists.

    Another way to put it: if you’re a programmer, where do you want to work?

  • http://www.patthorntonfiles.com pat

    @Brad,

    Excellent point. I don’t have a good answer for that. Some journalism companies are compelling alternatives for tech-savvy people, but many are not.

    I think journalism companies need to foster a culture of innovation. 20% time (like Google) would go a long way towards that. Of course, the most tech firms will continue to pay better than journalism companies.

    I do know many smart, tech-savvy people in journalism. Not that many of them know or care about business models, however.

    But I want to bring this back to the original question at hand. Let’s say a journalism company does snag a smart, tech-savvy person, how does that company keep those employees from bolting to another organization/field?

  • http://www.fakemustaches.org Patrick Yen

    I’ve given up on waiting for old media to get their heads out of their asses. It’s not going to happen. They will all go out of business before they will change their system.

    The smart thing to do is to organize all the young, talented, creative journalists out there to start their own employee-owned media company.

    It would require investors with deep pockets for startup capital, that’s for sure.
    I think that’s a more realistic option at this point in time.

  • http://www.scnpa.org Chip

    I agree with Patrick Y. it’s not going to happen anytime soon. If I were a reporter, I wouldn’t want my story to be embargoed until 12:01 am. I would want it published as soon as possible.

    Papers like Las-Vegas will keep young talented people, because they’re doing great work, they “get” the web and it seems like they’ve got unlimited resources because they understands what it takes. But when you have people who are resistant to change, the young guys are better somewhere else.

    The way that a company can keep someone tech-savvy around is by giving them creative control of their online product. Cut the tape and let them have control with minimal oversight. That would be a nice start. Another way to keep them around is put them in managerial roles. No more of the idea of paying your dues to be an editor. How can you be a web editor when you have no experience using it?

    Pat, I agree with you as well, I love journalism. I also love the idea of a web centric model. But trying to get others in my office to see my vision is frustrating and like P. Yen, it makes me want to start my own media company.

  • http://www.classicwfl.com WFL

    I’m basically in agreement with Patrick Yen and Chip, however, I’m one of those bright young fellows (at least, so I’ve been told).

    One of the biggest hurdles is organization. Not necessarily going through the chain of command, although I do experience my fair share of frustration (see my blog article “Management: Trust Your Experts” – http://www.classicwfl.com/blog/2008/04/management-trust-your-experts.html ), but also dealing with the fact that the entire business model of the print industry has revolved around the sales dept. Trying to remember which online guy blogged about the days of saleswoman in skirts being gone soon.. Anyway, looking at my place of work, they practically own the paper – especially since the entire print industry has been strained, and they’ve actually managed to pull some great numbers out of said skirts.

    They still feel like they are what will make or break the news industry, it would seem. Maybe in some way, but they refuse to let the model grow.

    That part of the hierarchy in newspapers is where the fault lies in growth.

    Of course, would YOU want to change the industry in such a way that your job might become meaningless?

  • http://www.seanblanda.com Sean Blanda

    What this essentially comes down to is a work environment. I can deal (somewhat) with lower pay, I can even deal with a struggling industry.

    But what I can’t deal with is an unwillingness to try new stuff. It would be great if a company just let someone pitch a new product or online feature just like someone would pitch an article. I can’t deal with the “debby downer” people, and I can’t deal with doing web grunt work to earn my due when I could take my talents to the tech field.

    We all love journalism for various reasons, but I would bet that the main one is the excitement around new ideas and new news. Don’t rob that excitement from young people by continuing to plod on with a “business-as-usual” approach. Everyone my age wants to be the breath of fresh air that everyone claims the media industry needs. Let us.

    /whippersnapper

  • http://www.themodernjournalist.com Brad King

    @Patrick:

    The original question was: Can Newspapers Keep Their Smart, Young People?

    I think my answer was directed at that question — and judging by the responses after, I would say the folks here are in agreement. At some point, you look around and ask this: do I stay and fight in a place that devalues technological innovation or do I go work for a place where that is demanded?

    For younger folks, the first job is often a blessing (yay! I have a job). Soon, realities of life set in: families, bills, schools for kids, taxes, new cars, ect — and the “fight” becomes less about the job and more about navigating your life in a manner that lets you enjoy what’s really important.

    Ten years ago, when I started working in new media journalism, my friends and I could never imagine a life outside of the media. These days, none of those friends work full-time at media outlets. We still write and do journalism — but we do it on our terms because at some point the fight wears you down.

    (I sound old, and I know what the response will be — because I was never going to let that happen to me either :)

  • http://www.patthorntonfiles.com pat

    I’m going to say that this smart young person might not be in newspapers that much longer.

    I do think over time you start getting beaten down by all the missed opportunities — all the times when we could have innovated and given people what they wanted. Change happens in every organization. I’d challenge any of you need to name a traditional media outlet that isn’t changing. But that’s not the issue.

    The pace of change is often extremely slow. One day you’ll be sitting around thinking to yourself, “I’m 23 now, and before I’ll know it I’ll be 30 and by then maybe we’ll be where we should have been today.”

    That’s a scary thought. To think that I might waste some of my most energetic, experimental, iconoclastic years in a risk-averse environment is a tough pill to swallow.

    Brad’s right. One day I’ll have bigger things to think about than my job. I’ll have a family, a mortgage and lots of bills. This is the time in my life when I can think about big changes. And take big risks.

    It doesn’t matter how big your ideas are or how many risk you are willing to take if no one else is with you at your company. Change doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

    Innovation takes a culture. Most newspapers simply don’t have that culture.

  • http://www.lectroid.net Marc Matteo

    What is this “young” BS?

    I’ve met my share of “young journalists” who are nothing more than products of the old system. Oh they’re not stupid or anything, they are quite nice and friendly people, they are great writers… but the are not “web natives”. They think in 24-hour news cycles and that they are the only gatekeepers of information, etc (you know the rant).

    I, on the other hand, while not “old” thankyouverymuch, am not “young” either. I started at my first newspaper job 20 years ago… and launched my first daily newspaper website almost 12 years ago.

    Back then we had to walk to work in the snow, uphill both ways, with Netscape 1.1 AND WE LIKED IT

    Seriously tho, it’s not “young” that papers need or don’t need, it’s “visionary”. Right or wrong we need ideas and risk takers and folks who aren’t afraid to look at news differently.

    So, can papers keep their visionaries? I don’t know, but I know what happens if they don’t.

  • http://www.allthatanda.com Kim

    I think it comes down to what someone else mentioned above. Newsroom Culture.

    I love journalism. I love newspapers and I love the web. But if newsrooms continue to foster a culture of “Let’s wait and see what happens with this web thing,” smart talented people (young or not) will leave.

    Innovation and trying new things is central to the idea of the Web. It’s fast paced and you try everything, and will probably fail at some things. That is not something I think print folks are willing to accept right now.

    Granted, there are some papers which have shifted their ideology. Who is at the top? Do they know what IM or Twitter is? Do they know how to use their Blackberry? You can be excited about new media all you want, but you’ve got to have support to stay and fight the fight.

  • http://blogs.mercurynews.com/obrien/ Chris O’Brien

    Not to be snarky, but I’m surprised to hear that any newspapers are hiring any bright young people. At the Mercury News, we bring them in as interns, but there’s no chance that any will be offered jobs.

    The original post also mentions the “horrible pay, hours and uncertain future” at mainstream newspapers. Are there web-only operations where the hours are better, the pay higher, and the future more certain? Not that I’m aware of. Getting a job at a place like Gawker Media pretty much guarantees you’re working 24/7 for peanuts. Though granted, they “get the Web.”

    And to Marc’s point, I agree. Age has little to do with it. I’ve spent the past year working with college media outfits and studying them. I’ve found them to be far more conservative and unwilling to experiment than professional outfits. There are certainly pockets of college journalists and young journalist doing great work (including P. Thornton). But many more of them are clinging more tightly than we do to the notion of a era of newspapers that ceased to exist long ago.

    My experience at the Mercury News is that editors will pretty much let you try anything you want to do. The real issue is capacity. You can do new things, as long as you keep doing everything else. That’s unfair and unrealistic. And it’s a pattern that forces journalists of all generations to throw in the towel.

  • http://mediageeks.ning.com/profile/WendyParker Wendy

    Ditto Marc’s thoughts.

    This isn’t just a generational concern. I just watched an incredibly talented digital journalist and a true driving force on our website walk out of my newsroom last week. She’s not young, but mid-career like myself, and it was a real sock in the gut. Not someone you replace easily at all. She’s gotten out of the profession altogether.

    It’s hard to foster that change and get on the winning site of the digital divide when you lose people like this, regardless of age.

  • http://www.themodernjournalist.com Brad King

    @Chris

    I can think of dozens of web-only operations where the hours are better, the pay is better and the freedom to do what you want is greater.

    My first staff job was at Wired News and I made a substantial amount more than my newspaper brethren. I also had the chance to do daily, weekly and monthly podcasts (although we called it streaming and downloadable audio in 2001). We were doing some fun stuff with photos and images.

    We could do whatever we wanted. Cnet was the same way. Salon didn’t pay as much, but they have tremendous freedom.

    Gillmor did some neat stuff at the Merc, but I didn’t meet anyone from the SJMN who had as much freedom and fun as we did working online.

  • http://www.jessicadasilva.com Jessica DaSilva

    With no strings attached, young, talented journalists can afford to find the journalism jobs they want. My dad has always told me (imagine deep, thick NY accent), “The moment you get your first job is the moment you start looking for your second.”

    I think that’s very true. First, you want a job; then, you want a job you’ll like. I think there are a lot of opportunities out there for young people because they’re a lot cheaper to hire than a seasoned reporter. Even if you’re extremely talented upon graduating, you’ll still be making less than someone just as talented who’s been in the business for 10 or 20 years.

    Journalism students don’t expect good salaries. But those who stick to journalism probably don’t care about that anyway. With the increased demands that face reporters today, it can’t really be just a job anymore. It MUST be a passion. Everyone knows that if you want a good salary, good hours and a nonthreatening workload, you go to law school or the private sector.

    When you’re young, you can afford to find an environment you like. Once you find it, why would you leave?

    So can newspapers keep talented young people? Yes, to an extent. The ones who get it will attract them. The ones who don’t will not.

    I think it’s really a matter of time before the news orgs spearheading the online movement (with their young talent and innovation) turn into news juggernauts and overtake small, crappy newspapers.