Is it even possible to "move up the ladder" anymore?

[spud]

Not to pile on, but this has been on my mind of late. If we are to assume that when the economy normalizes that our little newspaper niche will continue to deteriorate - or at the very least that it won't be getting any better - what are we left with? Is there any point in continuing on with this profession aside from sheer love of the game? Has the diluded pool of overqualified candidates made this a quicksand job for the rest of eternity for all but the uber-rare, lucky few?

I'm a young(er) guy, and I'd love to think that there's a path left to be cut, but I'm not sure the ladder to better opportunities exists anymore. Is it even possible to move on up without Peter Gammons-like contacts?

 

[RickStain]

IMO, no. But your results may vary.

 

[zebracoy]

I was thinking about this as well, and I don't think so.

With nobody hiring, where's the room to move?

 

[Gomer]

The new "moving up the ladder" is "staying on the ladder."

 

[BitterYoungMatador2]

How the hell do you move up a ladder when 89 percent of its rungs have been hacked off with a chainsaw?

 

[Batman]

How the hell do you move up a ladder when 89 percent of its rungs have been hacked off with a chainsaw?

Shoot video of your futile attempt to climb it, then put the video online. For free.

 

[Stitch]

(Fixed) I don't know how you do it when people in their 70's and 80's are hanging on to jobs in a dwindling market.

 

[DanOregon]

Get a blog and call Muhammad Ali a douchebag. Accuse Michael Phelps of using roids. Spout off about your theory that the NFL gets a cut of the action from Vegas but doesn't share it with the NFLPA. You'll be a star.

 

[Mark2010]

Dan, tabloid journalism at it's finest. If that's where things are going, I'm not sure I have a desire to part of the march to hades.

Seriously, it will be interesting to see where things are when the smoke clears in a year or two or three or whenever.

Most of the decisions being made today are economics driven and not journalism driven. Was discussing this today with someone and saying maybe the silver lining is that the corporate chains who are in it solely for the money will wake up and get out and find some other industry to cannabalize and media outlets will again be owned by someone else who actually has an interest in the product.

Jobs will come back, whether in this form or some other form. I got out of newspapers in the early 1990s and got back in 10 years later, after several other ventures. I understand that option to come back will always be there if/when the itch strikes me.

The jobs may be different. Maybe the public won't care so much about a beat writer travelling with the Yankees and writing game stories and sidebars, because they see it all on live television now. But there will be other capacities.

A lot of industries are going through these sort of times right now.

 

[WriteThinking]

The path will be more circuitous, involving more lateral moves, and probably, more niche-driven jumps, just because that will be the nature of the business -- fragmented, niche-driven and specialty-oriented.

And that will go for whatever people may cover/work on, and also how they may do it.

For instance, in the past, a traditional copy editor who was likely to remain a copy editor for many years, if not forever, might, in the future, be a traditional copy editor in one job, but then move on to a position/place where he/she would be an audio or film editor, or some such thing, in the future.

A baseball beat writer at a newspaper is now, and in the future, more likely to move on to a baseball-only specialized Web site.

A person might be a blogger in one job and a broadcaster or videographer in another.

 

[Mark2010]

True dat.

 

[HorseWhipped]

One of the more-disturbing trends I have seen in the past 15 years or so is that the corporate managers rate your status when you walk in the door and don't let you ascend from that.

So you get pigeon-holed for the job you came in at, with no room to grow.

What a mistake. People have left and gone to lesser papers -- not lately, because of the economy -- because they had proved that they were ready for the next step up, only to be told that the company is searching for a good outside candidate.

What bull****. Great newspapers, if there are any left, know how to develop talent inside and then reward them when they prove they can take on more responsibilities. And I say this as someone who has been allowed to climb that ladder, but it hurts every time I see good talent leave my paper because they want a chance to spread their wings.

Most of them wanted to stay. Most of them really did not want to leave.

And then they left.

 

[Fredrick]

Great question. I don't know the answer, but I'd say, no.
Your only bet to move up the ladder is if your paper covers pro teams and one of the guys quits and they simply move you up from your beat to cover that beat because they won't want to replace the person from outside. It's sad.

 

[HorseWhipped]

That's how is works at my shop.
Sometimes they move someone into a beat he or she knows nothing about.

 

[Joe Williams]

We can safely assume that, even if you move up something resembling the old ladder in job duties, you won't be moving up the old ladder in pay and benefits.

Those are moving down the ladder. Fast.

What once was the big leagues of this business now is Triple A. All the other levels have dropped a rung or two, too, in ambition and amenities. Which means you've got to move up just to stay even. And moving up never has been harder.

Oh, I almost forgot -- good morning!

 

[podunk press]

Well, I think those of us still in journalism are trying to hang on to what we have and see what happens when the economy improves.

I feel like journalism is evolving at a rapid pace. I have no idea what it's evolving into. But something tells me a new ladder (best jobs are online?) will eventually replace the one we all used to know.

 

[WaylonJennings]

Waiting for Dave Kindred to show up and tell everyone that you just have to want it bad enough.

 

[RickStain]

Well, I think those of us still in journalism are trying to hang on to what we have and see what happens when the economy improves.

I feel like journalism is evolving at a rapid pace. I have no idea what it's evolving into. But something tells me a new ladder (best jobs are online?) will eventually replace the one we all used to know.

I believed that when I heard it in 1998. 11 years later, no progress.

 

[WriteThinking]

One of the more-disturbing trends I have seen in the past 15 years or so is that the corporate managers rate your status when you walk in the door and don't let you ascend from that.

So you get pigeon-holed for the job you came in at, with no room to grow.

What a mistake.

This is true.

The job/level/classification for which you are designated when you come into the business, or any new work place, is of primary importance.

It is something I didn't realize, or believe, until it was too late, because I thought, apparently naively, that I could/would/should work my way up, and I was willing to do that.

Despite a lot of good work and some significant success by many measures, however, actual truly upward mobility has been hard to come by.

 

[mustangj17]

I haven't known this business to allow moving up the ladder in the first place.