Should we lie to journalism students?

Not now. (Note the words "In the future," Mizzou.)
And besides. It was a joke.

 

Tell them, in all honesty, that journalism isn't the field that it once was. The jobs aren't there anymore and if you get one you're going to be killing yourself with the amount heaped on you. Tell them to pick a major that you wouldn't mind as a fallback and work your ass of at the student paper. And then tell them this:

Look, I was layed off as a freelancer two years ago. It was a shock. It changed me as a writer. I can't throw myself into a piece like I used to, but it also made me much more objective.

I don't even know if I'd take a job at a paper anymore. It's not secure enough.

 

This thread was quoted in a discussion of sports journalism: http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/journalism-an-anachronism-and-still-a-profession-worth-pursing/

 

More like "A post from this thread was used for about a fourth of a column about how sports journalism used to be."

I wonder if the Sainted Dave Kindred will get nailed in that whole "no outing" rule thing. Not to mention fair use . . .

Or perhaps the person who was outed will be along to say Kindred had permission. Those who cling to the idea that being "determined" or "wanting it bad enough" will lead to great things must stick together, after all.

All the pretty words in the world about how other professions are also in trouble forget to mention two things:

1. Those professions often pay more money.
2. Continued job losses in written journalism are beating job creation by a wide margin, and those who have managed to monetize their online ventures aren't exactly the norm.

As has been noted, Journalism has never been a place that will make most of its toilers rich, or even well-to-do or comfortable. But it was easy to be romantic about the profession when there were more jobs. Now, where there once were 100 jobs, there are 20 (give or take).

Holding up the fact that we all heard in our youth from people discouraging us to go into print journalism only reminds me of how the attitude that "We survived radio/TV/etc., we'll survive the Internet!!!!" turned out to be horribly wrong.

The landscape isn't changing, as so many in journalism education like to say. It's eroding.

 

Dave and I discussed it prior to the column's publication, and I said he could use my name, Piotr. He wanted to say Double Down, and I thought about it and felt it was time to own what wrote here, for better or worse. I've been outed enough times by folks (Hi Jason Whitlock!) that it hardly matters anymore. I am who I am, which is not Les Carpenter. I've grown a bit weary of the burden caused by my own hypocrisy of not having to own what I write, especially when it pisses people off if I'm commenting on something they wrote. So there it is.

Your comment about us needing to stick together because of our romantic notions of journalism is a bit unfair. I have my opinions and Mr. Kindred has his. We may be overly romantic about journalism, but we came to that conclusion separately, not as a part of some foolish brotherhood that is naive about our survival. If you feel differently, you're welcome to weigh in. There are no absolutes here, nor did I suggest any in my original post.

 

So then you're NOT a bunless chicken sandwich at KFC. Good to know.

(But you might still be Les Carpenter)

 

Exactly.

 

A few things...

This fetishizing of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, et alii, is detrimental in several ways. I went to school with several people who got jobs there within a year of leaving college, and they were neither the most talented, nor ultimately the most successful out of all the people I went to school with. It's where you finish, not where you start, and holding a somewhat irrelevant position at the best paper in the country may not always be a better path to success than holding a relatively important position at a run-of-the-mill major metro.

As far as whether we should "lie" to journalism students, I imagine it is the university, ultimately, that is lying to them, by being one of hundreds (thousands?) in the country to offer a journalism program, just as those universities also "lie" when they churn out hundreds of graduates every year in other dead-end fields where the career path is: A) change your career path; B) become a K-12 teacher or C) work your ass off and hope and pray you can make it in true academia, where you will still be overworked and underpaid.

But then again, perhaps that collateral damage is what it takes to sustain a truly inventive, entrepreneurial society. A society has to produce a lot of flameouts in order to produce one true game-changer, the one who can revolutionize an entire profession. Who knew that Bill Simmons would be a game-changer? He had flameout written all over him, and certainly did not achieve success (not that he tried for very long) in the traditional arena, yet love him or hate him, he somehow rambled his way into becoming a game changer.

I used to be fairly arrogant inside my own head (not publicly) because I was fortunate to experience quick success within the industry. Therefore, when the middle of the last decade rolled around and people started getting laid off around me, I knew I had job security and wasn't going to be one of them. But then, a few years later, people that I objectively *knew* were better than me started getting laid off -- due to beat eliminations, top-shelf salaries, etc. -- and that's when I really got humbled. It is truly a weird thing to know that you are still around because you weren't the worst AND you weren't the best.

 

I'd like to welcome the 27 guests suddenly viewing this topic.

 

Musta gotten bored really quickly, it's down to three now.

 

What a disappointment. All this time I thought you were a damn tasty KFC sandwich.

 

I have students (not journalism students) who ask me about those days, and I tell them that it was a fun career until I hit my mid-20s. Then, when it wasn't so much fun anymore, I moved on to something else. They should be prepared for this dynamic; that's all they need to be told.