Daily to twice weekly

How hard would it be to return to a daily (I work at one now) after going to a twice weekly? All other things being equal, if the twice-weekly pays more and has job responsibilities that you enjoy a bit more, but you have career aspirations of working at a bigger daily some day, is such a move wise?

 

In theory it should work out fine, especially if you can explain your move on the resume or in the cover letter for your next job. If the move gives you a chance to cover colleges instead of just high school and community sports, or makes you the leader of a staff, then it can help quite a bit.

In practice? I don't know. I went from a daily to a weekly when I lost my job, and after two years I've struggled to even get a callback. Perhaps I wasn't as good as I thought I was -- in fact, I'd be willing to wager a good sum that's the case -- but now I'm not even getting anything from papers that I wouldn't have thought to put in for back when I was at a daily. It's probably more me than the job, but the longer you stay at a non-daily, the more question marks you might raise for daily editors who wonder if you really left for a non-daily because you can't hack on regular deadlines.

In short, I don't know. If you think it's a good move based on the job itself, then consider it. But like chess, you don't think about the move you're making, you think about the one three moves down the board.

 

I did it.

I left a sports reporter position at a daily in the middle of nowhere for a thrice-weekly paper in a bigger centre. I took the job because I'd be a section editor, my ME was a former sports editor at a fairly large daily, and it paid more.

After a year, I was back a daily, no probs at all.

 

Congrats, but you're the exception that proves the rule.

Once you're out of the daily grind, you're probably out for good. It's the inverse Hotel California.

 

:'(

 

Let me ask you this: I've entertained the thought of going from my mid-level daily and becoming an m.e. for a weekly, bi-weekly ... would I be better off climbing the ladder where I'm at, say by becoming a desk editor?

 

Stick with the daily. Weekly, bi-weekly, whatever they may be ... they are still looked down upon by an editor who is looking for someone to hire with "daily" experience. The deadlines don't test your mettle like a daily's do.

 

That's a lie. My deadlines at the thrice-weekly were worse than a daily. Example: We published Wednesday morning and my deadline was Tuesday at 11 a.m.

You had to keep things fresh, out-smart the daily competition, be a better writer and have better sources in order to still break stories - which I did.

If you explain all that in a job interview, it may actually score you points.

Not to mention, if you're a good/better writer you have as good a chance as anyone at getting the job.

When I went back to the daily from the thrice-weekly, I was hired because "I was the best writer of the candidates" according to the SE who hired me.

 

I was at a weekly trade paper that had insane deadlines. Monday was the budget meeting and you needed to have about 5-6 story ideas. Then develop about 1-2 of those enough to put in an e-mail blast. Nothing on Tuesday, then Wednesday all stories complete, bosses took them home to look at them. There was also another email blast on Wednesday that was sent out. Thursday was production and the time you got stories back. With a staff of four reporter-editors you laid out every fourth week, sometimes more if we were down a person. Sometimes you'd have to make substantial corrections and keep up with your pages. Sometimes stories would be assigned on Thursday afternoon since there was a long time between sending them to the press and the time the readers actually saw the paper. And sometimes the bosses expected the paper early. They might have had a function to go to or you might have had a function to go to that night. However, I must say there was an element of teamwork there. People did pitch in.
From there I went to another weekly, this one a suburban paper that was recently purchased and the new company was looking to give it a new look.
I helped choose new styles for headlines, cutlines, headers and added regular sports coverage. I also slotted and laid out the news pages (it was a tabloid) for a while before the page load was split between more people.

 

I'll repeat this for emphasis' sake: Stick with the daily. You might at well dig your own grave otherwise.

 

As is often the case, there's no perfect answer, but start with this:

If you're at a daily, all editors -- good ones and boneheads -- will be able to see that you're at a daily, have daily experience, and that's that. So that means your field of possibilities is bigger.

Discerning editors might be able to look at the current situation, the work, the whole resume and say, "Well, maybe he's at a weekly now, but he's done good work, he has daily experience and he's worth talking to."

Boneheads will say, "He works at a weekly" and be done with you.

But then, you might prefer to be working for the discerning guy anyway, right?

There's no black and white here; if it's a lot better opportunity, and a lot better pay, you might be able to work it out and still go back.

But there will always be people, as BYH says, who view you as damaged goods.