FriendFeed
| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: this industry, this website |
Topic: this industry, this website
  Page 1 of 3   |
|
| Author | Message |
| floruja | Posted – 1/28/2005 2:02:25 AM | show profile | email poster Apologies, first of all, to those not in the writing dodge. That's what I do, and my focus on it here simply reflects my own point of reference. We writers get a chance to do some amazing things. We have a platform the average citizen rarely gets and, with that platform, a chance to make a difference in the world. Last year I wrote a story about insurance--a plain-vanilla service piece--that prompted three companies to rethink their policies and offer more equitable coverage to gays. That piece will have more impact than will my interview with a two-time Oscar winner. (continued) |
| floruja | Posted – 1/28/2005 2:03:03 AM | show profile | email poster The thing is, we have to earn our access to that platform. That means getting the proper training (and not *necessarily* in the classroom; I'm the last person to say academia fully prepares you for this work) and, yes, paying our dues. Earning a writing career is a tough nut to crack, and there's neither room nor patience in the field for everyone who thinks s/he can do it. But it's also a profession that recognizes, values, and nurtures talent when it sees it. Though perhaps overly starchy in our dismissal of the wannabes, the old pros are generous with and perhaps even protective of those newcomers who clearly have true talent. What's defined today as ''media''--as outlets for professional writers--includes all manner of things that weren't even germs of ideas a generation ago. I like the diversification: I've been earning money for articles published on the Internet for nearly 8 years and am nominated for a national media award in that area of the business this year. But I'm also concerned that the new media proliferation has encouraged more people than ever to enter the field and has left the definition of a writer defined too loosely and in an insufficiently professional manner. And it troubles me when individuals or enterprises encourage people to believe in a future that, for want of proper preparation in tandem with unrealistic expectations, they're unlikely to realize. We see the phenomenon constantly here. People arrive on this site by the dozens, if not the hundreds, telling similar tales. They got degrees in chemistry, or social work, or engineering, only to realize what they really want to do is write, and they want to know how they can land an interview at Conde Nast with no journalism coursework, no experience writing for the college paper, no internships and no clips. Well-intentioned people, many in the same boat, offer encouraging words. Those who present a more realistic perspective are accused of negativity, but I don't see what true kindness there is in encouraging them to continue shaking a tree that's unlikely to yield fruit. That's NOT to say that they're shut out of the field. But they have to recognize that even just among their peers, they're up against people who are several lengths ahead of them in the race, and there's no ignoring or getting around that--particularly in a city like NYC, where everyone and his pet goldfish thinks he is or could be a writer. If it were that easy, you'd see a lot more pet goldfish bylines in the Times. If you've laid the groundwork and have the talent, you'll find champions of your work among established professionals, including the dwindling few who remain on this BB. If you haven't, and if you're spending more time making excuses than you are getting your chops, don't expect kid glove treatment from those who have been where you want to go. And don't allow yourself to be steered off course by ostensibly nice, kind, supportive words that tell you what you want to hear instead of what you need to know. Ultimately, their help will keep you down. To my mind, an online media community has to be very clear about that. If it's not, it fails to identify and nurture the next generation of talent in our field, and everyone loses. Whether and how I may continue to participate on this board is unclear. Certainly it will always be difficult for me to hold my tongue when I see people being given advice or sold a bill of goods that strikes me as running counter to their interests. And most assuredly, I don't get lost from anywhere because I've been invited to do so. On the other hand, there's little to be said for shouting at brick walls; it's frustrating and ultimately a bore. But amid all the contention, smart, funny, capable, talented people continue to make themselves known here. I hope to have the opportunity to network with them, and I hope everyone here who deserves to make it does so. |
| maphop | Posted – 1/28/2005 10:04:39 AM | show profile | email poster A Frustrated Kindred Voice Thank you, thank you, thank you. Every time I enter this BB and scan what's been posted in the last few days, I do so with hope - hope that I'll find someone with a pertinent question, perhaps a different perspective on writing than I have, a kindred spirit in making a fulltime living as a writer. I agree wholeheartedly with you that writers have a truly unique place in this culture - what we put in print or out to the market in film or audio has the ability to change the view of millions - but what I come away with after reading much of what's posted here is a keen sense of disappointment and, at times, a sense of disbelief. Questions posted, even in AG, are often those that the same time spent with a reference book, in a class or on the phone would have answered. I've gone from trying to be helpful to those posting questions (and being called too uptight or too concerned with such mundane things as spelling and grammar) to feeling that the BB almost perpetuates the myth that anyone who can log onto the Internet can call themselves a professional writer even though they don't know how to craft a query, locate a source, locate an appropriate phone number, email address, tape recorder, press pass, etc, etc. Being a writer and part of a writer's community is about much more than meeting for martinis while wearing boas. Now, if I get blasted in response emails for nothing else in this message, I'm confident that it will be over my take on the importance of martinis to the craft of making a living as a writer... |
| aspidistras | Posted – 1/28/2005 11:07:31 AM | show profile not always ''But it's also a profession that recognizes, values, and nurtures talent when it sees it.'' ... IF YOU'RE LUCKY. I have worked at numerous book publishers where no one ever gets promoted, much less mentored, and I have seen plenty of talented, eager young people flee to teaching, grad school, etc., after seeing what they're up against. Newbies, be sure to ask about room for advancement when you're interviewing. |
| caitlinkelly | Posted – 1/28/2005 11:28:15 AM | show profile A true mentor is not (only) a cheerleader but someone who for a variety of reasons wants you to succeed over the longterm, even if short-term pain is required that will affect your ego and/or your pocketbook. It's someone who will clearly but kindly call you on your *&^% and label as best they can, whether it's poor interviewing skills, or a lack of marketing or sloppy reporting or whatever they think -- including (oh, yeah a recession) -- might be slowing or stalling your progress in this very difficult industry. A true mentor knows both your own internal aptitudes (can you really take criticism? How many rewrites are you up for? Will you call 10 more sources on a poorly-paid piece because that's what's needed by your editor, if not your bank balance?) as well as your skillset and its fault lines. The greatest gift any of us can find is a person like this to help steer us clear of our worst inclinations and absurdities. You may never find this person in your office, and you might have to look elsewhere, maybe for many years. Occasionally, people with much experience have shared their POVs here with people whose hopes and dreams -- nurtured by pop-culture vehicles like American Idol? -- seek a quick happy answer and an overnight 40% salary hike. So shoot the messengers and you've got a pile of shot messengers. The best thing about writing for a living (not a staff job at a major publication), is the low barriers to entry: a phone, email access, a few buyers' names and a functional brain. It's also the worst thing, encouraging those with zero ability and less willingness to acquire skills at whatever speed is realistically possible to scream bloody murder when they hit a few walls. The veterans of the industry, if not the superstars, have usually acquired a few brick-shaped scars, if only psychic, along the way. Add to this mix the ever-present pile of vendors -- from MB to NYU to Gotham, in NYC anyway -- eager to profit from the desperate hunger to ''make it'', preferably quickly and lucratively, among such people. ------ Freelance writer Caitlin Kelly, has written for The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and other publications. You can read samples from her new book at blownawaythebook.com |
| floruja | Posted – 1/28/2005 4:11:46 PM | show profile You make a valid point, aspidistras, though I don't think that problem is unique to this business; most professions have something akin to a ''hazing'' process to identify its best and weed out its worst performers. Caitlin and maphop, thanks for adding your thoughts; I hope some of the newcomers to the profession can appreciate and learn from some of the wisdom you shared. |
| auswriter | Posted – 1/28/2005 5:30:53 PM | show profile so true... I'm a long time skimmer of these boards but I haven't got involved until now. I'm a features editor at a major national magazine, and I completely agree with your point here, Floruja. We just advertised a staff writer position that would be perfect for a graduate (as rare as hen's teeth, I can tell you) and got the requisite hundreds of responses... but most were just appaling. It's like these people think someone owes them a writing job. Things as basic as the spelling on your application (yes, someone mispelled ''magazine''), the attitude involved: ''I see this as a temporary stepping stone on my way to being the editor-in-chief of a woman's glossy in five years'' - we're a men's mag. ''I actually hate men's magazines.'' ''You should understand I am actually an accomplished screenwriter and will not work in an environment with people who do not respect my creativity does not adhere to deadlines'' - from a 22-year-old with no credits at all. Then there were the people who had no journalism training, no clips, twelve years in a waitressing job, and obviously thought they were qualified. Or the guy who told me he ''was quite simply the most brilliant young writer in the country, with absolutely no exceptions.'' I won't even get started on the people who whined about how it was impossible for them to get published anywhere, so they hadn't included a writing sample (we asked for one on the job ad) because they hadn't been paid to do any writing. Hmmm... just write one? I don't know if this is just me, but I busted my arse when I was younger to get my first job. I wrote for free (a crime I know to some here, but at least I got those coveted clips), I volunteered at magazines and newspapers, I read everything I could and talked to everyone I could find to learn about the business, and when I actually wrote my application, I made it perfect. I was so disheartened by the whole process... I only got a handful (honestly) of resumes from people who had done the basic groundwork expected of a journalist. (No, a media degree does not a journalist make, in my opinion - I'd expect any college grad to have written for someone, even if it's the NorthWest vegetable growers monthly or something - just show me you want it!) Is this whole American Idol culture telling everyone they're a star, so they don't need to do the work? How do we convince the young people coming through that they need to build their skills, not just their image? Everyone told me they were creative, unique and a real individual - but what about being a good writer? Sorry for the long post, it just really frustrated me... |
| lvanderkam | Posted – 1/28/2005 6:04:07 PM | show profile Halo: I'm sorry you had such a tough time filling your position. But I hope you won't judge all recent graduates by the poor writing and inflated egos. You did get some good ones, right? What you point out is why it's hard to give students advice on writing careers. I've spoken to college students a few times, and people ask if it's tough to make a living as a writer. I want to say it depends. In my experience, magazines and newspapers are often starved for good writers, but there's an abundance of bad writers out there. If you're willing to train yourself, learn the industry and how to ply your craft, and if you're willing to work hard, then it's a wonderful career. People will want to work with you. If you're not willing to do all that, or don't have an aptitude for it, you'll be scraping by. And it's hard to judge that when someone asks at a panel discussion. |
| auswriter | Posted – 1/28/2005 7:02:27 PM | show profile Some sagely advice.... We did get a few, although most of those were chosen for ''potential'' more than where they are at now. We picked the people who had obviously put a lot of work into their applications, had worked at getting published (even if that meant volunteer gigs or student newspapers) and looked like they were really passionate about writing. In my experience, those kids turn out to be the ones who really work hard to master their craft and become an asset to the magazine. I try not to judge all grads by this experience, no. I've met a few young writers over the years who would put me to shame! I've also handed out plenty of advice to new writers over the years, and I'm not saying we should discourage people. I just think a lot of people out there want the status of being a ''writer'' (and yes, even though we don't get paid a motza, most people are pretty jealous of magazine journos) without actually wanting to do the work that gets you there. It makes me think about the best career advice I ever got... I was obsessed with writing as a teenager (still am) but growing up in a small town where one was expected to get a ''real job,'' I never thought I could do it. Then I met a big international music agent. I asked him about the music industry - how no-one ever gets a break, and millions of people are trying - and told him that was how I felt about my chances of being a writer. His reply: ''I get thousands of demo tapes a month. The honest truth is, most of them are crap and the people sending them are lazy. If you have talent and you're willing to work damn hard, your chances aren't actually that bad at all.'' He might not win any prizes for his prose, but I still think he was right. Any grads or newbies out there who think it's impossible to break in - work damn hard and learn your craft. That will set you apart from most of the other people who want that job - yes, even in the ''we got hundreds of resumes for a shitty staff writer'' category. It is possible - you just have to prove yourself. |
| vilmoszv | Posted – 1/28/2005 7:10:15 PM | show profile Here's what I find is missing (and what I myself was never taught in journalism school, and what I imagine is even lacking in most English lit and creative writing curricula)). That creativity is not what being a writer is about. You can also subtract passion from the equation. Passion and creativity have to do with life, not with work. Bricklayers and ditchdiggers have as much opportunity to experience it (perhaps more -- think of the sublime epiphanies you experience while replacing a window screen or fixing your bicycle tire). I recently read a short story by Guy de Maupassant, considered to be the greatest short story writer ever. Afterwad, I was compelled to read about his life and training. Here's what one critic wrote about him: ''...he was severely trained by that rigid realist Flaubert, who taught him the art of construction, the principles of description, and the value of concentration and unity.'' Anything in there about passion or creativity? No. What you see in this quite amazing biographical snippet is a list of gruelingly hard-earned skills. This is what writing is. It is ALL that it is. Even the oft-quoted cliche, ''It's easy, just cut a vein and bleed,'' romanticizes the process. I'm a writer. A bad one. Every day, I have to train myself to overcome the void that was my NYU journalism education in order to produce something that resembles good writing. And I do so knowing that the majority of editors and readers will never understand what goes into the process. But I give them credit nevertheless. Because I think they will know when the good writing is not there. |
| vilmoszv | Posted – 1/28/2005 7:15:56 PM | show profile I meant to say ''afterward.'' Not ''afterwad.'' Which sounds, vaguely, disgusting. I also apologize for following ''passion and creativity'' with a singular noun form. We're trying to set a good example here. |
| eriksherman | Posted – 1/28/2005 8:17:37 PM | show profile halo, A couple of observations. First: >> Things as basic as the spelling on your application (yes, someone mispelled ''magazine''), the attitude involved: ''I see this as a temporary stepping stone on my way to being the editor-in-chief of a woman's glossy in five years'' ...<< Jeez. Oh, man, that is soooo scary to see. >> How do we convince the young people coming through that they need to build their skills, not just their image? << Don't mean to be harsh, but much of the problem is with people of our generation. Younger folk can see what side of the bread it buttered. Magazines go for ''high profile'' writers, editors become movers and shakers, and everyone wants to get onto tv. What would start change would be upper manager (meaning editors) showing more interest in the craft and less interest in the glitz. Although I know there are many business pressures, I have a funny feeling that any magazine that really cut its own path in terms of approach and content would find that an audience would appear. If younger people saw that publications were a place for those who really loved the process of reporting and writing, many would fall out of career lust, and others would catch fire. >> We did get a few, although most of those were chosen for ''potential'' more than where they are at now. << This actually is not unusual. It happens in all industries - I remember discussions of this when I was in engineering school many years ago. Companies didn't expect a new engineer to be able to add that much - they wanted someone who would learn. The trades (building, not mags) have known this forever, which is why there are the apprentice and journeyman stages. And it wasn't too long ago that what we do was considered blue collar work. I think it wouldn't hurt to get some of that attitude back. >> If you have talent and you're willing to work damn hard, your chances aren't actually that bad at all. << Amen - true, true. ------ Author of "Geocaching: Hike and Seek with Your GPS" - hidden at a bookstore near you... |
| eriksherman | Posted – 1/28/2005 8:19:47 PM | show profile >> Passion and creativity have to do with life, not with work. << I understand your sentiments, but disagree a bit. Work can always be creative and passionate - but then, I see passion differently than many. I don't see it as a burning emotion, but utterly loving something so much that you keep constant and continue your efforts even when it's the last thing in the world you feel like doing. ------ Author of "Geocaching: Hike and Seek with Your GPS" - hidden at a bookstore near you... |
| vilmoszv | Posted – 1/28/2005 8:45:53 PM | show profile I think we agree, sherm. I meant to say that the source of passion and creativity ultimately come from within the individual and can be applied, or elicited, from any human endeavor, including one's vocation, but that it is not inherent in the vocation itself. |
| Lotus665 | Posted – 1/29/2005 12:59:26 PM | show profile Halo, I'm curious why you would want a recent grad for a staff writer position -- wouldn't it be easier to get the experience and writing quality you sought from someone with a couple years' experience or more? Or do people with some experience also have a sense of entitlement to more money than you have in the budget? Also, I'm surprised you didn't get more resumes from over-qualified people who had the chops but having a tough time getting a job in this tight market. I'm not criticizing you at all, I'd just like to hear about this. ------ Lotus665 |
| Lotus665 | Posted – 1/29/2005 1:00:31 PM | show profile that's WERE having a tough time.... ------ Lotus665 |
| auswriter | Posted – 1/29/2005 5:28:28 PM | show profile Older writers Lotus, I was surprised too, to be honest. We said on the job post that ''the job would suit a recent graduate'' because yes, it is a staff writer post, and that's pretty much the bottom of the rung as far as mags go. For most people 'staff writer' is a first job. By the way, it does pay quite well (but still within the relatively low pay of staff writers, of course - we're not talking $50k here...) We did get some resumes from older, more experienced writers, but in general they either didn't have <relevant> experience or had no understanding of what the magazine was about. We were also conscious that we have three former EICs on staff right now (i.e., people who had been the EIC of a mag before coming to us) so basically, we have enough editors. Obviously if the staff writer is good, he/she might eventually become an editor of a department and go from there, but we didn't want someone who was going to come in and try to run the place - and that's the attitude we got from a lot of the older guys. Choosing a writer from a list of resumes is a very subjective thing. We have to think about who is going to be able to fit in well with the existing team, as well as write decent material... Quite a few people with acceptable clips were struck off for unacceptable attitudes. Call me unfair, but we're an easygoing workplace and don't want a self-proclaimed ''handsome, brilliant writer who epitomises the modern man and gets laid five times a week'' - yes, I know we're a men's mag but that was still a little shocking for a cover letter - coming into the office. Besides, I'm a firm believer in giving a break to someone new. These jobs don't come up very often, and it's one of the only jobs where you don't necessarily need a lot of experience, just a lot of enthusiasm and some good writing. But for the record, even after my EIC suggested I strike out anyone older (''because they probably don't realise this isn't a glory job'') I did read every last resume. One of our candidates for interview is 35. We have three men and two women on the shortlist. I'll let you know how we go with interviews! |
| auswriter | Posted – 1/29/2005 5:40:58 PM | show profile Spelling bee By the way, I should point out I'm english originally, so I'm not mispelling ''realise'' etc! I do write in American at work, but not at home. The number of times people say, ''oh, you've mispelled color and defense and flavor....'' just a pre-emptive strike... especially since I've been complaining about my applicant's spelling! |
| vilmoszv | Posted – 1/30/2005 3:20:18 AM | show profile I found halo's post about the hierarchies of hiring, the suppositions of editors who hire, the supposed expectations of those looking to be hired, all seen through the prism of age, to be very enlightening (as opposed to enlightened). ''Age,'' ''overqualification,'' ''beginner'', even ''salary expectations'' -- these, increasingly, are words and terms without practical meaning. We're living in an era in which the economic paradigms of employment are shifting so madly and unpredictably that people ought to be judged on the quality of their work first and foremost. (I think I'll put a period after that last sentence.) ''Older'' writers -- I don't even know what THAT means, since it's a relative qualifier -- but is 35 an ''older'' writer? I'm 28 and 35 doesn't seem ''old'' to me. I don't think Henry Miller was ''old'' when he started writing at 40, and I don't even think of Philip Roth or Tom Wolfe who write today as being ''old.'' Their words are vibrant and alive. In my opinion, any writer of any age who finds himself on the street faces the same challenges in finding a new job. He bleeds, gets hungry, wants to work. He deserve to be judged on the quality of his work. And, personally, I find the word ''overqualified'' as used by those who hire to be pandering and insulting. If someone sincerely wants a job and is qualified to do it, he may, I guess, be discounted as being insincere or delusional, but to tell HIM he's not right because he's overqualified is, in my opinion, insulting and wrong. All writers today grapple (or ought to) with the anxiety of the inherent insecurity of their chosen field of endeavor. I know many travel serpentine paths in the course of their careers, weaving in and out of educational programs and seminars to bolster their skills, taking jobs that are lateral, rather than vertical moves, even taking steps backward to gain experience in areas that are different from the ones they have the most experience in. Finally, I don't see anything inherently noble in giving a ''break to a beginner.'' It's also, you know, not a bad thing to give a break to an experienced writer who needs a job. |
| vilmoszv | Posted – 1/30/2005 3:27:38 AM | show profile I have to take a step back from my own post. Halo, I apologize in advance if it seemed I was being critical of you. Your post is really thoughtful, fair and generous. Rather, I was triggered by some key words which I suppose elicited things that have been on my mind. Some of you may have seen a previous post of mine in which I lamented my own lack of consideration for a writer in his 50s who had once approached me for work. Again, apologies for my inappropriate stridency. |
| auswriter | Posted – 1/30/2005 5:08:08 AM | show profile On a serious note vilmoszv: No problems. I want to say this here to be totally honest: when I first found myself in the position to hire people instead of begging to be hired myself, it shocked me how easy it was to fall back on those old ''boss'' crimes: yes, things like age discrimination, the 'overqualified' tag (I was once told I was overqualified for a job - at 22), or discounting someone because something rubbed me the wrong way personally when I should have had my professional hat on. Things that would have made me stew with anger when I was looking for a job. I think when the stakes are so high, the deadlines so fast, there are 300 resumes to read and finding the right person is really important, it's easy to understand why people might be tempted to ignore those people who didn't fit their original idea of the perfect employee for the job. That doesn't make it right, however. The first time I had to find an employee I did that. I judged people. I said ''oh, she wouldn't fit in, she's...'' and then ''oh, he wouldn't really want this job, he's done this and this and this...'' Then I stopped myself. I thought about who I really wanted to be as an editor. Then I went through and read every last resume again, this time fairly. I found a great hire who certainly didn't fit the original profile. He's still with us. Now I do make a huge effort to read every last resume. If you put the time in to apply for a job, I think you're owed that (although it explains why I got so frustrated reading hundreds of awful resumes with no effort put in at all!) That's not saying I'm wonderful and virtuous, by the way... just that my job is to find the best person for the magazine, and I can't know I've done that until I've looked at every last one. BUT from my experience that's not the norm, and I've been laughed at by other editors for taking my pile of resumes home to look through when ''I could just put a line through all the <insert characteristic here>'' I should also add that people like me don't make all the decisions: When I asked about an older candidate this time around, my EIC advised me he would be 'more comfortable' with someone younger than him in the staff writer job (he's relatively young for an editor) and at one point even questioned whether a female candidate would ''fit in.'' Um, I'm a woman, and I fit in just fine... Things like sex and age discrimination do happen on an unconscious level. Sometimes they're not so unconscious, though: I once recommended a friend for a job to a business acquaintance, the female editor of a mag mostly geared towards men, and was told ''oh, I can't hire a woman. It's not a woman's job.'' Hello? I might be opening myself to attacks here, but I think we need to be honest about what goes on in this industry. If you're a woman who wants to work for a men's mag (or the other way round), if you're older than most or you've been away from the workplace a while, or even if you didn't go to Columbia, you're probably on someone's strike-out list. And it sucks. What sucks even more is when people who have broken through those barriers kick the ladders out underneath them (like the female editor above, who I'm sure was just terrified another woman on staff would be direct competition.) Or when they say, ''I'm a black woman/I'm not from NY/I didn't go to grad school'' and use that as the reason why there can't be any discrimination and all those people who think there is just aren't as brilliant as they are. To conclude: My job is to get the best writer possible for my magazine. That's it. It means I work a lot harder on things like hiring than a lot of editors I know, but that's ok. I can sleep at night. Maybe I'm being a little too honest here for my own good, but this is an important issue for our industry. It is EASY to discriminate. Everyone has prejudices, especially when we're told all through our journalistic careers that there's always someone new waiting to take our spot, our job, our livelihood. It's a competitive game. I'd be interested to hear what other people have to say on this... maybe some of you have had better experiences. But I'm willing to bet a lot of you have faced discrimination sometime. (But I stick with my original post: we still got a lot of god damn awful resumes!!!) My... this has become a serious thread, hasn't it? |
| eriksherman | Posted – 1/30/2005 9:33:04 AM | show profile halo, I have a serious question: does your EIC use the same age and sex prejudices when considering freelance submissions? Or is it a matter of idea, query, and clips? ------ Author of "Geocaching: Hike and Seek with Your GPS" - hidden at a bookstore near you... |
| auswriter | Posted – 1/30/2005 5:56:56 PM | show profile Freelancers oh, god, definitely not. We're extremely open to freelance from anyone. (I'm just thinking: this issue we ran two writers with no clips, one openly gay guy writing about ''how to get her to sleep with you'', and one of our photographers was probably middle-aged during the blitz.) I think the full-time thing is a lot more likely to attract discrimination in general (especially the unconscious type) just because you actually have to work with the person you choose day in, day out. I did the freelance thing for a while for practically everyone out there (I started as a political journalist, believe it or not...) and only ran into trouble if I mentioned I was from the UK. I guess that just makes it look more difficult to say yes? thanks for the question, erik. I don't mean to be trashing my employers here! |
| eriksherman | Posted – 1/30/2005 7:07:32 PM | show profile >> thanks for the question, erik. I don't mean to be trashing my employers here! << halo, don't feel badly - these are all pressures that people end up feeling in business, not just media. I remember some time back when I was in corporate management. The COO at the time said something about wanting a pretty girl as the receptionist. The HR director and I were both in his company - both our jaws dropped, we almost literally grabbed him by the arms, dragged him into his office, and said, ''Are you completely out of your mind??'' He eventually got canned. Dealing with attitudes that you know are illegal without just ignoring things and yet without burying yourself professional is a tough walk. It's good to hear about the freelancers. A large number of my colleagues actually worry about age issues, and having that affect whether they can sell an idea or not. Did covering politics help you understand office politics at all? I remember once having an assignment to write about to deal with office politics, and then finding my research sending me along the line of how office politics can actually be positive, when used in the right way. Talk about an unexpected take on a subject. If I ever pitch a feature to a men's magazine and wind up talking to a British woman, I'll guess that I can relax and mention my age. LOL ------ Author of "Geocaching: Hike and Seek with Your GPS" - hidden at a bookstore near you... |
| floruja | Posted – 1/31/2005 9:09:00 AM | show profile An interesting ad just started running on copyeditor.com for a position at the NY Post. The ad nicely and clearly delineates who should and should not apply for the job, though doubtless the hiring editor will get scores of resumes from people without the requisite experience anyway. I'm curious, halo, as to whether you have the sense that this is a US phenomenon or one that plagues the profession in other countries, as well. Are Brit universities producing mass quantities of clueless grads, too? Are people over there also swarming into seminars and programs that claim to be able to give them skills, qualifications and employability at warp speed? It's interesting that no newbies have jumped into this thread. Have they read it and dismissed us as old and out of step? Is there anything we can do to get through to them and those coming up behind them? Or is it a hopeless case to, as I said at the opening of this thread, tell them what they need to know when others are all too ready to tell them what they want to hear? |
| Page 1 of 3 |
|
