Or, at least, the amount of take I’m willing to express publicly. Take it for what it’s worth.
Kinda knew this would happen.
I’ve never been a Globe staff writer. I’ve contributed regularly to the paper for a few years, mostly for the sadly now-defunct City Weekly section. Obviously the union members were in an impossible position, rock v. hard place; I have no interest in judging their decision.
What I do wonder is this: How many people in the union came of age during the death-of-journalism career era?
Take my experience. I started covering music in 2002, a few years out of college. After a year, I decided to stick with journalism. The unanimous response from editors and reporters: Dude, it’s hard. The industry was already in the ICU.
My experiences proved them right. Friends, even very experienced reporters, permalanced for news outlets; some got hired, some didn’t. (And they were the lucky ones, with 40 hours/week of paid non-benefited work.) Some got hired then laid off when the program, section, or paper closed. Freelancers abounded. Lotta people in this boat. Hard work often didn’t lead far. I called it the sweatshopping of the media world.
So I took an optimistic view of freelancing: I could write about anything. (Mostly not music anymore.) This, along with my fantastic part-time university writing job, worked quite well until the March Globe crisis.
How many Guild members understand the modern-day career trajectory? Do they know what it’s like outside the masthead? This is a genuine question, not a sneer. When I’m around print-journalism-lifers, even young ones, there’s a disconnect. Many don’t seem to realize that the rungs of the career ladder have broken, how many journalists don’t have staff positions. Some say they’ve never had to cold-pitch a story.
Has the freelancer perspective been represented in the Globe/NYT dealings and decisions? Should it be? (Another genuine question.) I love the paper. And obviously it hits our finances too.
Immediately, for me, the vote probably means yet more uncertainty of the sort that leads editors not to return emails. They don’t know what space they have to assign, only that it continues to shrink.
For the profession, so-ci-ety, the human condition, etc., I don’t think anyone expects objectivity from me on this front, so: dear death of journalism: fuck you.
xx
djd
Filed under: media | 14 Comments
Tags: boston globe, death of journalism
amen danielle. Let me know when you find your way out of this morass.
big amen from a fellow globe/boston freelancer.
Is this coming from someone that is part of the generation of youth that have decicded that getting their news in print is boring, and that getting their news from tweets and bloggers is more entertaining? I don’t think that the old timers are going to have ANY sympathy for you or your generation of tweet heads. the advertisers are killing themselves trying to reach you and your peers – online seems to be the only place to find you. You reap what you sow. good luck with it.
Edit: I think we’re all frustrated right now. How has the Banner been handling the shift to online journalism? What do you find your readers want?
The Banner can never be sustained as an online source only. We can’t compete against content that is updated every ten seconds, such as other large news sites, and we can’t compete against 3 million eyeballs. Our online revenue is a fraction of our print revenue and could never provide the revenue to pay our writers to cover the stories we cover. If the print version dies, the Banner dies with it. A reall bummer.
@Sandra
I don’t think print will ever actually die, but honestly, I get annoyed whenever people pull the “those stupid kids don’t read” card, because it tries to shove the blame squarely away from where it belongs; the people running the newspaper industry. It’s funny you mentioned “reaping what you sow”, because that’s exactly what’s happening. And it’s a shame so many people are getting hurt, but the reality is, the market’s changing, and sulking about stupid kids just makes you look out of touch.
To better understand why those stupid kids don’t read the Globe, here’s what I want you to do. Sit down with a Globe. Pick a day, it won’t matter much. Pick up an Xacto knife, and start cutting:
-Anything that is not “hard” news. Style, reviews, TV listings, stock quotes, comics page, editorial, syndicated columnists, etc. Cut it all out, every last piece. Why? Because that’s all stuff people can and will get from blogs or websites faster and cheaper (with apologies to our host, I know losing this content would hurt your wallet). It’s archaic to feature it, because it’s from an era when people didn’t have access to this stuff on a gadget in their pocket, if they really want it. In other areas, it would make sense to feature, but here in Boston, it doesn’t. It’s safe to assume the majority of the potential Globe leadership has access to the Internet.
– Anything that comes from the AP, Reuters, or some other newswire. If it’s just edited copy, into the bin it goes. Yes, that includes a lot of national news, but, again, this is something that people can get from multiple reliable sources elsewhere. The Globe can’t compete, and it shouldn’t.
– The ads. Leaving aside for a moment that everybody uses Craigslist, they’re not relevant to this discussion and they’re not distinct anyway.
Now I want you to look at what’s left, because that’s what makes the Globe distinct and different from the other media outlets. This is what the Globe has, that is totally distinct, that NO ONE ELSE has, that no one else can compete with.
You know how much I had left over, after doing this two years ago? About six or seven pages, maybe. Less that I actually cared about. Maybe, what, ten minutes’ reading? Less? Why would I pay for that, especially if this method isn’t the only way to get it? If it were a full paper, of just that content, then asking fifty cents isn’t asking much. But six or seven pages? Especially if it’s free if I’m willing to wait?
Here’s how it is: several factors changed in the market. The truth is, a lot of people bought newspapers for the classified ads. That’s where a good chunk of circulation came from. Then Craigslist came along; cheaper to use and advertise in, faster, constantly up-to-date, accessible…newspapers simply couldn’t compete. So suddenly, they lost a huge chunk of their ad revenue and to a lesser extent their circulation.
Then, blogs came along and compromised the value of pretty much everything that wasn’t hard news (including the editorial section). People simply value things like the style section or movie reviews less because the audience has their choice of content. So newspapers lost a huge chunk of their value. Scoff at this all you want, but the blunt reality is, putting something subjective on paper doesn’t make it any more legit. Just more expensive.
Finally, the newspapers themselves just refused to understand the industry. It blows my mind they actually want to take content off of Google. Are you kidding me? Who runs this industry?
Oh. Right. People who blame “stupid kids and their Internet” for their own shortcomings.
God, it has literally never occurred to me that lifetime Globies might not have any idea how brutal it is out there.
The freelancer question is one nobody’s really been asking here, and it’s a good one. Looking beyond the Globe’s current woes, attempts to unionize/bargain on behalf of freelancers have met largely with dismal failure. (Even when they won, they lost. Look at Tasini vs. NYT: freelancers won the battle against online rights grabs and lost the war.)
Like a lot of people in this wretched business, I’ve been spending a lot of time lately thinking about ways newspapers (or newspaper-like entities) can make money online, besides just running display/search ads. I’m curious about what the Bay State Banner has tried. Looking around their website, I just checked out their “Business Directory” and got a box that says “Click here to download plugin.” (Er, I don’t think so.) Sandra, do you charge businesses to be included? I’d think an online directory of Boston-area black-owned businesses (or businesses that largely serve the black community) would be really useful to your readers.
I agree with a lot of what you write – I did not mean to imply that the problem lies exclusively with the youth today. That’s hardly the case, and I agree that newspapers – the Globe in particular – have done a lousy job and 90% of it is not worth reading. I work at a community newspaper that is worth reading, has great value to the community we serve, our readers are passionate and loyal, but we are really struggling to survive not out of bad business decisions but because we are caught in this vortex where advertisers no longer believe that people want to read print, and everything is moving online. We have a nice website and try to accommodate our younger readers, but we cannot survive online alone – the revenue is limited. So I do feel passionately about the issue, and our big issue is trying to get the under 30 crowd to read us in print – they only want it online. Hence, my comments directed at youth. So it’s a multi layered problem with poorly managed newspapers, and a short sited advertising industry that is always looking for the next big thing – and they ignore things of value if it doesn’t fit in their narrow definition. Very frustrating. I appreciate your comments – they were insightful.
Aaaagh the thorny how-to-monetize-the-internet roadblock. I just can’t see convincing younger readers to go back to print—except for the Sunday paper, for those who like to/can spend part of that day relaxing. We’re better off charging for Kindle and iPhone subscriptions.
Hard to imagine papers getting the cat back into the bag, i.e., putting online content behind a paid-subscription wall. But at the same time, it’s hard to resist a price of $0, no matter how much you believe in the product… especially if you’re younger or lower-income (in this case, a vague category). Maybe it’s time to hit up NPR/WBUR fundraisers for their tips on convincing people to pay for something they can get without paying? Of course, NPR is not-for-profit.
Lissa,
Yes, the business directory is definitely a weak spot on our website! We charge very little for the print version of the business directory to make it an affordable way to advertise for small businesses – and just post it as is online. I try not to compete with other black owned online businesses in our area, and there is already a “black pages” online that is an extensive business directory – so we didn’t want to take away from their business – as that is all they do. Maybe that’s bad business decision 101 – but the Banner has made a lot of our decisions based on being good members of a larger community. We do have plans to expand the website – to include a dynamic blog section, more classified ads, etc. but our resources have been so limited these days we have to put it on hold. Unlike the Boston Metro and the Boston Globe, the Banner can’t afford to lose millions of dollars a year! We can only spend what we have which limits our ability to grow as fast as we would like (but we don’t have debt!!). The demand for the paper has greatly increased – we get calls all the time for having the paper distributed – but we can’t afford to increase the circulation! I welcome feedback so thank you!!
As one who freelanced before the print-journalism-is-dying days, I have to say that it was never good for freelancers. Don’t let yourselves believe it was. You were always treated as a second-class citizen, always of only marginal interest to editors. Witness the all-rights contracts the Globe, Herald and Phoenix bullied freelancers into either signing, circa 2000-2001. If you didn’t like the terms, you were no longer writing for that outlet anymore. And that was after the Tasini case was “won.” Obviously, there’s less freelance work out there now than there was 10 years ago, but please don’t ever think there wasn’t the same lack of security and respect that there is now.
Your article kicks ass.
There’s a People. Planet. Profits model in here..screaming!
Sandra’s earlier comment about positioning the Banner not to compete with others doing things in the community was so cool. But, competition is a good thing, a very good thing.
With the brick and mortar and print overhead cost mired in the Banner’s overhead, I can totally overstand how cash flow became a big deal these days.
The Young People comment she made is about accurate too because I know of a young person, a recent local Big University grad that preferred not to plug in the Cat 59 cable wire from Comcast into her big screen TV because she owns a laptop and it delivers all the TV she needs and she says “its free.”
Never saw a free B Phoenix in her hands. Never saw a free Banner in her hands, but got a ping from her on Facebook today when the Michael Jackson memorial ceremony aired. There ya go. The future, humm?
The PPPs came from Kirk Sykes when he was profiled in the Globe as he talked about his headaches at the Olmstead Green residential property development. Finances there are a big deal too said the article.
Time will tell what happens to Boston’s printed Banner. I don’t think the Banner will go down and out yet because it does have a market and serves it well.
It could use a serious section for the Webby 2.0 crowd sourced, meeting-up-at “The Alchemist” – for-networking-Black online groups, I think.
The Health Magazine product – what’s the scoop on that?
Vacations are cool.
Hope the Banner takes as much time as they need, then, print again.
@blackboston is tweeting too.
Reading the Globe story—
… said Lou Ureneck, chairman of the journalism department at Boston University’s College of Communications. “Papers that define themselves by ethnographic niches may end up relying more on shallower advertising bases.’’
I am extra-perplexed and concerned because I thought The Experts had been saying that papers with a clearly defined audience were in BETTER shape due to loyalty, i.e., ads. In the Banner’s case: Where else would a small business targeting the African-American community advertise?
This leads me to wager that again, no one really knows anything about how to keep a newspaper alive today. Tell me, should I start writing an audience-pleasing novel with literary pretensions or without?