| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: Why "just good" overachievers get screwed. |
Topic: Why "just good" overachievers get screwed.
| Author | Message |
| MarblesRhyme | Posted – 8/20/2007 10:58:10 AM | show profile So, here's my theory on journalism career tracks: If you're an ambitious journalist with lofty goals (ie. working for a national publication), in this crappy market, you need at minimum two things: 1. Connections. 2. Amazing talent. If you don't have numbers 1 or 2, but you're good, you can get places, but not to places that will ultimately make you happy. What does this mean for overachievers who are just good? It means we get stuck in ruts at jobs that pay us but rarely come close to fulfilling us. At least, that's my situation now. The thought of leaving the industry breaks my heart, but the thought of spending the rest of my life at a mediocre publication breaks my heart more. Has anyone else struggled with this -- the fear (or, perhaps, knowledge?) that you're simply not good or connected enough to move up in journalism and that, if you want to reach that brass ring, you're better off moving to another industry? |
| JimmyG | Posted – 8/20/2007 12:03:43 PM | show profile Try being an actor, which I did for a few years while I languished in a dry, unfulfilling publishing job in my 20's. Not only do you need connections and amazing talent, but try reconciling your ego when a casting agent tells you that you just don't "look right" (too tall, short, fat, thin, etc) for the part. Seriously, though, I can't remember a time when this wasn't the case. You almost have to be the child of the publisher's golf buddy to get hired on a big paper out of school--most everyone else languishes for a time in small-down dailies, suburban weeklies, trade mags and such. The lucky ones have a system of support or unlimited energy that allows them to satisfy their careeer cravings by writing for low-to-no-pay alternative weeklies and weblogs while waiting for their ships to come in. I can underatand the immediacy. When I set off in said acting tangent (actually, improv, which helped my writing tremendously at the time) I nearly had a nervous breakdown over the lack of fulfillment in my chosen career. I eventually bounced around until I fell into a content niche that I found interesting and profitable enough to sustain me. I will also bore you with the news that your career goals do change over time, along with personal growth and various life stages. I recall when I graduated college in the 1970's that about half of everyone I knew wanted to be a rock and roll reviewer and/or work for Rolling Stone. The other half wanted to unearth the next Watergate scandal. Most of us hadn't even considered the paths our lives eventually took, so hang in there and don't lament the things you can't change (i.e. lack of connections). As for talent, that's always in the eye of the beholder. I've had bosses and clients who thought every word I wrote was golden. I've also had some who treated me like I wasn't worthy to put words to paper, let alone write for them, so it all evens out sometime. Assorted platitudes suggest that water seeks its own level, the cream rises to the top, etc. and it's usually true. It just takes some of us longer to realize our potential, and perhaps to realize what our potential is. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 8/20/2007 12:54:03 PM | show profile Well, there's a lot of issues here. Journalism is a competitive field filled with talented people. And unless you reach the upper tier, you have a hard time making good money or doing rewarding work. If you truly feel you are good-but-not-great and are destine for a lifetime at some so-so trade magazine or regional newspaper, I could understand why you would think about shifting careers. And the truth is even people at good publications often start to getting tired of journalism by their 40s. It's really a matter of deciding what your life goals and priorities are. There's nothing magical about journalism. Lots of people leave for other professions. |
