Unemployment...

See, this is part of the problem, though.

If you can't get much information from former employers, then you are left, oftentimes, with just your imagination, and your efforts to read between lines.

That's not really the best way to go about deciding whether you want to hire someone. And yet, that's what employers do. Often, it has little to do with "diligence." Heck, sports editors don't even have much time for diligence.

They read clips, look at resumes, and pick out a few candidates they think might be good. They interview a couple, and then, oftentimes just go with their gut as far as who they decide they "like," and they hire that person. That's really it.

But if someone never gets to the interview stage, perhaps on the basis of some either non-existent or irrelevant issues, they will never get the chance to be hired on the strength of that all-important "sense" that someone may have about them if they met, or on the basis of some first-hand information rather than pre-imagined or unexplained suppositions.

I guess what I'd hope is for employers to realize is that there are lots of people these days who are looking for fresh starts. Oftentimes, fresh starts -- how ever they come about and for whatever reasons they are needed -- entail taking what might be perceived as steps backward.

The employee, however, may not necessarily see it as such, given their circumstances. There are many reasons people might take a job for which they either appear to be, or else, actually are, overqualified for. It doesn't always have to "mean" anything, and employers shouldn't always see bogeymen everywhere. That's old-days thinking, in a time when everything has changed in the working world, and when most people are just trying to get by, and survive, and hopefully, do something productive the best way they can.

My guess (well, OK, so it's not a guess) is that someone who has been out of work for any length of time might see any decent job as a godsend. And, who knows, they might even treat it like one, and the newspaper would do nothing but benefit from that.

Based on a lot of people's thinking and fears here, there will be nobody over the age of 32 or so even working in journalism before too long.

 

All of the stuff people here are suggesting is good, but as long as you have a resume that has entire sections lifted from elsewhere and you're lying about your experience, nobody in this area is going to hire you. They know you and they know BS when they see it.

Stop lying to yourself about who you are and what you've done, and then, maybe somebody will take a shot at you. But haven't you already burned enough bridges?

 

Is one of you Jay Mariotti? If so, which? Thank you for your time.

 

My $0.02:

mcollar,

Nyspts lobbed some pretty serious grenades your way. To respond that you never stretched the truth in your resume "to (your) knowledge" is questionable. And having your resume "done by three professionals"? Very weird. Shouldn't you do your own? If Nyspts is full of it then allow me to humbly suggest you defend yourself a little more.

 

Mcollar,

I agree that since you are a writer you should do your own resume. Many sites like careerbuilder.com offer free editing and critiquing and honestly its quite good. I have relied on Careerbuilder as a the only tool for my resume tweaking and I have had no problem getting jobs.

Also, could it be possible the people who wrote your last resume plagiarized? Maybe you should redo it?

Lastly, have you had any in person interviews in your two years off? If so what did you wear? Maybe some board members can help without being as harsh as NYSPTS.

 

The one thing I like about this forum is you get to read so many comments from people in all parts of the country, sharing their experiences..As far as Write Thinking, you're probably right on the mark..the newspaper world is passing me by...at my age, I chose not to pursue training in the social networking area..that's my decision and I will try for another field..In an ideal world, I'd like to catch on with something different and still do freelancing..who knows...I just didn't know how many people were in my shoes...now I got a better picture.

 

This is very true, and it's not your fault mcollar, but there are legitimate concerns. I once was sports editor at Podunk Weekly and got an applicant about your age for our reporter job who had some nice clips from USA Today and the major metro in our area.

He was excellent in the interview and said he had tired of the travel at his age and wanted to work close to home. He was pretty well set financially, but not ready to retire. Sounded great and I hired him.

A month later, I had to let him go because he consistently blew deadline, and I quickly found out that his editors had done a fantastic job of putting lipstick on the pig that was his writing.

After that, I was very leery of hiring someone of that extensive experience applying for a Podunk job.

 

bigpern, that's a good reminder that bigger papers not only have talented reporters and writers, they have talented editors, too.

 

I'm not sure what you're suggesting, though. There is no Platonic ideal for hiring. No one has unlimited time and resources to review job candidates.
I'm not suggesting that anyone should immediately be discounted as an applicant based on age. That's illegal.
I'm saying there is nothing wrong with a person tasked with making hire wondering why an apparently over-qualified candidate applied for a give job.
In fact, it's that person's job to wonder about it, to call references, to call previous cowroerks and employers, and to ask about it in a possible interview.

 

I guess I'm not particularly suggesting anything, except, perhaps, to put open-mindedness before fear, rather than vice versa, which is the tendency.

Also, that, in fact, you are right -- there are no hard and fast rules to hiring, or reasons for things that apply in every case. I hope/wish that employers would realize and remember that, I guess.

A case in point with regard to bigpern's example, and TW's response: Indeed there are good writers and good editors at large papers. But, there also are some not-so-good ones, too.

Every case is different, and you can't, and shouldn't, read the same thing into every one.

 

Those were things I considered when I was in a position to hire a new reporter. In addition, I also considered fit within the office culture, and when I interviewed a guy who'd just recently left a 200K circulation daily, I asked him if he would have any problems working with people who had relatively limited experience compared to that which his resume and cover letter showed.

If someone had been a managing editor or sports editor for a long time and they were applying for a reporting gig making $18K a year, it would give me pause to wonder why someone would leave a gig with more responsibility for one intended to be an entry level position. I also had to wonder if the person was going to angle for my job at some point.

But, yes, appearance is very important. I tried to dress at least business casual when I went on assignment and I expected those writing for me to do the same. Around the office, I didn't care what you wore as long as you wore something. But if you're going to cover an event and you have to go up and talk to people, I expect you to represent the newspaper well.

Needless to say, it's even more important to represent yourself well when you go on a job interview. You are the brand. You have to have a resume that's your wording, although possibly also tailored to the specific job requirements. You have to dress well. Suit and tie may be too much for an entry level reporting gig, but if a guy walks in without a tie or a woman walks in wearing flip flops, I'm sure as fuck gonna notice. And if you come in wearing sweatpants, sorry, but you've just disqualified yourself no matter whether your clips sing better than Jackie Evancho or not.