FriendFeed
| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: Newspaper Escape Plan |
Topic: Newspaper Escape Plan
| Author | Message |
| aoscruggs | Posted – 8/19/2008 12:11:28 AM | show profile | flag this post If you are a former newspaper person, either by choice or not-by-choice... in fact, if you're in print at all, check out this new facebook group, "Newspaper Escape Plan. The creator, Martin Gee, is a former designer at the San Jose newspaper. he was laid off, and this is his response. The discussions look good, and the conversation is civil. |
| chucho | Posted – 8/19/2008 12:50:54 PM | show profile | flag this post This is an interesting subject, and I am wondering what others are doing to adjust to this climate. I have wondered if this could actually be an opportunity for wanna-be "newspaper free agents", especially those with the multimedia capabilities that seem to be so popular (ie using a video camera and uploading clips to the site). Is it possible that newspapers will cut staff so much that they might be more willing to buy free-agent content? If a free agent were able to garner a couple of throwaway gigs and produce overlapping articles for newspapers, is it possible to survive in this manner? Is it possible that a person could become a kind of itinerant freelancer with a focus on a high volume of short and sweet newspapers gigs to supplement the income garnered form larger features--- even in the same market -- like writing about one subject for a large state paper and another subject for its competitor? How does multimedia play into this? Is it possible to have a police scanner in your home office and running out to snap pics, film images and maybe write spot pieces of as a freelancer. In other word: can a beat reporter live in a place of high interest (major city, USA) and not actually work for a newspaper, but focus on the kind of stuff newspaper would publish rather than magazine features. (I find magazine work to be usually nowhere as interesting -- like writing cookie cutter pieces for airline mags or chamber of commerce mags -- I'd much rather sell 10 $50-300 newspaper spot pieces than two $400 longer glossy pieces. Could it be that this is going to be easier to do as newspapers slash full time staff? I guess the simplest way to ask this is: are there freelancers that focus primarily on newspapers, and will that aspect of freelancing become easier as the industry bleeds staff? |
| snappiness | Posted – 8/19/2008 1:37:03 PM | show profile | flag this post Freelancing for newspapers? At less than $.30/word? That's what our paper pays. Even several gigs at that rate would be barely worth the time and energy to do the piece, not to mention the overhead you'd be carrying for your own office (phones, software, etc). To invest time and money in heading out to a crime scene on your own initiative and hope to land the story in a local newspaper, even if they don't have their own reporter there I just don't see that being at all profitable. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 8/19/2008 3:11:01 PM | show profile | flag this post --'d much rather sell 10 $50-300 newspaper spot pieces than two $400 longer glossy pieces. Could it be that this is going to be easier to do as newspapers slash full time staff? I guess the simplest way to ask this is: are there freelancers that focus primarily on newspapers, and will that aspect of freelancing become easier as the industry bleeds staff?-- Newspapers have never been a lucrative field for freelancing and I don't see that changing. It would be very difficult to cobble together 10 newspapers that would buy the same piece; virtually impossible to find 10 newspapers that would be a consistent market for the same type of material. It is hard for me to imagine any area of freelance writing where it would be more difficult to try to make a living than that model. |
| chucho | Posted – 8/19/2008 3:48:35 PM | show profile | flag this post Thanks for the feedback. What I'm trying to cobble together is a freelance lifestyle where I don't have to supplement my income with advocacy-type advertorial-ish magazine reports. I'd rather work harder and write about things I find more important than to write more lucrative long-form pieces that one could easily describe as "forgettable glossy content," especially for advocacy publications. I once wrote a story about how great this hotel was only later to learn the hotel abused foreign temporary workers, and I felt like when you go into that it's not really journalism but rather just some glorified form of copy writing dressed up as journalism. I really don't mean to disparage this work -- I know it's a business and people genuinely work hard at it, but when I tried it it felt like I was constantly selling something all the time and that editors wanted you to shill something, whether it was a travel piece, or a geographic profile or whatever. It seems often that this work is a kind of shill. What I'd like to do is get one or two magazine pieces (as far away from "forgettable glossy content" as possible, and avoiding advocacy publications altogether, except perhaps outdoor or wildlife stuff) and then 10 newspaper pieces (not 10 articles on the same subject, but various subjects to different newspapers, with perhaps some overlap in a number of the pieces for different markets. I mean, if newspaper reporting is such a low-pay hard-work job, how much harder can it be to focus primarily on newspapers? One the other hand, I can see why people would think this is a bad model. I think it's a bad model, but I have production experience, too, and I'm thinking it might be possible to do the mindless production-related work to supplement my income for focusing on article I want to write. Or I suppose just get another newspaper job, if there are any left by the time I decide to do this. Is there not a silver lining for freelancers to staff reductions at newspapers? |
| bjoconnorfla | Posted – 8/20/2008 12:31:57 PM | show profile | flag this post Newspapers that are laying off staff also are cutting the newshole, so there is less need for stories. Newspapers also have wire services and interns to augment the staff. I routinely assigned two or three pieces of freelance a week at my paper two years ago, now I do none. Your best bet at a newspaper is to find some regularly appearing feature, such as a local profile, business spotlight, pet of the week, etc., and get into the rotation to write that. Or try to pitch your own regularly appearing feature. For example, papers cutting back entertainment coverage likely want to cut the spending on restaurant reviews. Pitch a budget dining column for these tough times, where 2 people can eat for less than $50 or some such. It allows the paper to cut a full restaurant review that might cost upwards of $500 for the bill, have the staffer do another story, and then pay your $50 expenses and a decent freelance fee. |
| caitlinkelly | Posted – 8/20/2008 2:08:01 PM | show profile | flag this post Trying to make a living writing primarily for newspapers seems like an exercise in utter futility and a quick route to poverty. I've been writing for regional and national newspapers for 30 years and they keep *cutting* their rates -- with one national daily now offering a $100 "honorarium" (now, doesn't that sound classy?) -- one third of what they used to pay, a whopping $300. I write fairly often for the NYT and they pay well but few writers (there are a few who do it) have weekly columns or have carved out some sort of niche for themselves. Otherwise, it's hit and miss, with your biggest check, and rarely, perhaps $1,500. |
| aoscruggs | Posted – 8/21/2008 2:18:14 AM | show profile | flag this post Why I like(d) freelancing for newspapers They don't pay well, but they do pay quickly. Three years of freelancing has taught me the importance of cash flow. I get that measly check within two weeks of publication And I don't have to call or email to find out where my money is. |
| HisGirlFriday | Posted – 8/21/2008 10:02:59 AM | show profile | flag this post I've also been wondering if all the layoffs at newspapers is good news or bad news for freelancing - I think mostly bad. Shrinking news holes, terrible rates: I keep one newspaper client because I like working with the editors, the stories are fun (kids entertainment stuff) and as aoscruggs says they always pay quickly. I occasionally also do stuff for another section (biz) because it broadens my experience and clips. It's also like a security blanket - if everything else falls apart, I know I can do the work quickly easily and earn *some* cash. Most newspaper editors tell me, they're in a bind - management won't give them more staffers or more freelance budget. Their good freelancers move on to other clients that pay better. It all makes my ink-stained heart hurt ..... |
| chucho | Posted – 8/21/2008 10:50:46 AM | show profile | flag this post If all of this is true, it sees there must be a "breaking point". Newspapers can only cut staff so much and shrink holes so much and cut rates so much before they're left with a bunch of college interns putting out an exercise in futility (a crappy newspaper nobody reads). I want to see this breaking point so I know what to do. Joe Grimm's advice in a recent column was not optimistic -- basically saying newspaper aren't hiring and your best bet is to blog and hope you raise your profile enough that somebody deas decide to hire you (this was advice for a newcomer to the biz wanting to breaking into newspapers). Now I'm wondering: "OK screw you, newspapers -- I'll write wateverr I can to pay my rent and focus on making them look like idiots by spending my spare time at the courthouse actually finding news." I LOVED that story of that Boston woman that moved to New Orleans and began blogging about historic homes being demolished until she scooped every paper in the state about a program that was basically not demolishing homes, but reporting them demolished and defrauding the state, which involved the mayor's sister-in-law. A perfect newspaper story and it took a woman with a camera and a blog to scoop them. So perhaps, back to plan A: write what you can -- even if it's just bread-and-butter advocacy or trade pubs -- and find a way to synchronize this work so that you can devote time to piecemeal newspaper peanut gigs while focusing on stories you can post online to scoop these same newspapers until somebody offers you a decent, livable job doing the same work for them for a living wage salary? If this climate continues, I'm going to become increasingly more ambivalent about the longevity of the newspaper biz. The question is how to make money doing the kind of work they are less willing to do themselves. I don't think the "blogosphere" is an adequate replacement for the work newspapers do, despite the occasional scoop from citizen blogger. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 8/21/2008 11:29:58 AM | show profile | flag this post All of us have to make our own personal decision on balancing work we like with how much we can get paid for that work. The trouble with your model, to me, is your foundation is clients (newspapers) who don't buy much freelance and pay very little when they do. As you've described it, my fear is your will be working very, very hard to create a very tenuous "job" that probably will end up being below minimum wage. --What I'd like to do is get one or two magazine pieces (as far away from "forgettable glossy content" as possible, and avoiding advocacy publications altogether, except perhaps outdoor or wildlife stuff) and then 10 newspaper pieces (not 10 articles on the same subject, but various subjects to different newspapers, with perhaps some overlap in a number of the pieces for different markets.== |
| chucho | Posted – 8/21/2008 12:08:21 PM | show profile | flag this post Maybe I should work at Starbucks, too. . . for the semi affordable health insurance :) It's a real conundrum, but again there's got to be some silver lining to this for people, an unconventional approach, a strategy of some kind to make a living wage while covering important stories that aren't getting a lot of press in a climate where newspapers are getting smaller and fluffier. And doing it as a freelancer. |
| HisGirlFriday | Posted – 8/21/2008 1:19:40 PM | show profile | flag this post I don't know chucho - I really don't think (most) editors and publishers care about real newspapering any more. One of the reasons why I had no problem leaving my staffer job after my kid was born was that I could see the writing on the wall. My editors were losing interest in covering a beat the way I had always been taught: Newspapers are the first draft of history, nail every story, beat the pants off the competition, investigations, features. Example: I covered a courthouse and had to fight to write three basic 15-inch stories about murder trials (opening, verdict and sentencing.) I got, "Eh, we don't really care about that geographic area." Huh. We cover murder trials in Rizy-ville. Why not in Poor-ville? Read between the lines: We don't have the ads there. Ugh. I know newspapermen(women) have been decrying the decline of the industry forever but maybe this time it's not all Chicken Little. I think good newspapering is going to be even less likely to come from freelancers than staffers. |
| beenthere | Posted – 8/21/2008 1:30:03 PM | show profile | flag this post Here's a list of all the newspaper job cuts. recoveringjournalist.typepad.com/recovering_journalist/files/newspaper_cuts.pdf |
| chucho | Posted – 8/21/2008 1:49:01 PM | show profile | flag this post >> I think good newspapering is going to be even less likely to come from freelancers than staffers. << Yeah it's pretty depressing, but something has to fill the void. Whatever it is it will be online. I'm wondering if it will also encompass more free-agent reporting. I've already ordered my hand-held HD camcorder, because I've noticed a hell of a lot of posts asking for people to do multimedia. (I've already got the camera and the laptop and wireless modem connection.) But, it's still depressing because, as the poster above said, a lot of good reporting comes from just spending a lot of time reading court documents, not filming the rush hour traffic back to the suburbs (though that's an important part of the whole package). |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 8/21/2008 2:05:58 PM | show profile | flag this post Well, the issue is that most reporters aren't businesspeople/entrepreneurs. The first thing you need for any business is customers. But most reporters don't think in terms of what customers exist for the material they want to produce. They think in terms of what material would they enjoy producing. I find that the stories that many newspaper reporters think of as "important" aren't really that important to most readers. And that's part of their frustration. Their really isn't much of a market for what they want to do. For example, I make most of my living writing material that I personally would have no interest in reading. I write it because there is a market for it. --It's a real conundrum, but again there's got to be some silver lining to this for people, an unconventional approach, a strategy of some kind to make a living wage while covering important stories that aren't getting a lot of press in a climate where newspapers are getting smaller and fluffier. And doing it as a freelancer.-- |
| Rocky Mountain Writer | Posted – 8/21/2008 2:16:19 PM | show profile | flag this post We are rapidly moving toward the freelance model at my company, except the freelancers are businesspeople who gain visibility by publishing. We don't pay them, but we give them free advertising. It's an awesome deal for the writers and the publisher because it's a barter system and the bottom line looks great. It's not so great for me and the other editor/writer who have to edit these non-writers into a readable form, often rewriting. It's a big, big headache dealing with the prima donna "industry" people who demand final write-off on the articles, often taking upwards of two months to get back to us. Have I mentioned that the model sucks? Stick with real writers and editors. I only hope the industry does the same. |
| Seafarer | Posted – 8/21/2008 2:33:14 PM | show profile | email poster | flag this post Follow these folks for a window into modern journalism Newspapers and journalism are changing, obviously. There are some amazing people coming to grips with those changes. I recommend following their Twitter stream and/or reading their blogs: Jay Rosen, journo professor at NYU Amy Gahran, with Poynter Dwight Silverman, interactive journalism editor at the "Houston Chronicle" Ryan Sholin, boundary-pushing journo Meranda Watling, smart young journo, figuring it out Jeff Jarvis, journo prof and blogger ------ My Web site BootsnAll Family Travel Logue and Perceptive Travel blog Travel/tourism and the social Web at Sheila's Guide To The Good Stuff |
| HisGirlFriday | Posted – 8/21/2008 2:47:03 PM | show profile | flag this post This, of course, is the conundrum: Do you embrace the changes to be a new journalist (mojo, shooting your own HD video, etc.) Can you make it in the dwindling pubs that do the kind of writing you crave? Do you cobble together a career with lucrative (but tedious) work combined with some artistic flourishes (a la dribble.) Or do you say screw it and be a PR whore or do something else entirely? As dribble noted, we're not generally good business people (journalism is more art and social work, methinks) - and we seem to be notoriously loathe to embrace change. Not great combinations. But we sure can hold our liquor. So we've got that going for us. Which is nice. |
| chucho | Posted – 8/21/2008 3:48:39 PM | show profile | flag this post --> I find that the stories that many newspaper reporters think of as "important" aren't really that important to most readers. And that's part of their frustration. Their really isn't much of a market for what they want to do. For example, I make most of my living writing material that I personally would have no interest in reading. I write it because there is a market for it.<--- I agree with most of this, and I certainly understand that you have to write for the market as a freelance writer. (The most successful ones are indeed good at business because they approach it as such, instead of some idealistic mission.) This is an important issue, I think, because on one hand you have what's "important to most readers" and on the other you have what writers "want to do." Newspapers have traditionally been less interested in covering solely what they think their readers find important, and more focused on "sunshine," exposing what is not previously known and what becomes important to readers after the newspaper "exposes" something that readers weren't previously aware of. So going back to the "Newspaper Escape Plan" -- the question remains that if the main medium for investigative reporting (because I think that's what I alluding to when it comes to the traditional role of the best newspapers out there) withers away into puff pieces, re-hashes and fake travel reviews in dying newspapers with shrinking holes -- where does newspaper investigative reporting go? In-depth writing that has that "sunshine" quality to it -- not just writing what readers already think is important. For example, nobody knew what an "Abu Ghraib" was until Seymour Hersh shed sunlight on the little problem. Then it became important. And, contrary to popular belief that Hersh is some kind of super-connected reporter, he found that story by simply following up some rumors of abuse and paying a visit to a house of a soldier who was covering her body with tattoos after she had been discharged because as her mother suggested "she wanted to change her skin." He asked her why, she showed him the pictures. That to me is reporting that seems to be endangered. I like the term "Newspaper Escape Plan," but I think it's more optimistic to suggest "Newspaper Adaptation Plan". Or, figuring out what is going to fill that void in the future, if anything. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 8/21/2008 4:59:44 PM | show profile | flag this post --So going back to the "Newspaper Escape Plan" -- the question remains that if the main medium for investigative reporting (because I think that's what I alluding to when it comes to the traditional role of the best newspapers out there) withers away into puff pieces, re-hashes and fake travel reviews in dying newspapers with shrinking holes -- where does newspaper investigative reporting go?-- I don't respond to your black-and-white viewpoint that newspapers either do investigative pieces or crap/puff pieces. Personally, I rarely find the most interesting or useful content in newspapers to be traditional "investigative pieces" (most of which I find way too long and self-indulgent and put together in the hope of getting a prize.) |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 8/21/2008 5:06:42 PM | show profile | flag this post --This, of course, is the conundrum: Do you embrace the changes to be a new journalist (mojo, shooting your own HD video, etc.) Can you make it in the dwindling pubs that do the kind of writing you crave? Do you cobble together a career with lucrative (but tedious) work combined with some artistic flourishes (a la dribble.) Or do you say screw it and be a PR whore or do something else entirely?-- Personally, I split my time pretty evenly between work I do entirely for money (like corporate writing) and creative writing (like novels). What I avoid is the kind-sorta work -- projects I kinda-sorta find interesting for money that is kinda-sorta OK. Of course what each of us find rewarding will differ significantly. I've done most everything that can be done in journalism -- from a syndicated humor column to investigative pieces -- and at this point I find most journalism a bit of drudgery. Even journalism projects I find interesting, like profiles of intriguining individuals, don't particularly interest me if the pay is not good. |
| chucho | Posted – 8/21/2008 5:19:46 PM | show profile | flag this post ---> I don't respond to your black-and-white viewpoint that newspapers either do investigative pieces or crap/puff pieces. <-- I didn't mean to sound like I was reduce it that much. Newspapers, especially locals, play an important role in basic "stenographic" pieces of school board meetings and the like, which comprises a great amount of the news hole. An no reporter should feel above covering things like that. What I mean was newspapers are reducing staff to such a degree that it affects the overall quality of the paper, including the spot coverage. But investigative reporting seems more like a luxury than it should be and so it's the first to go because it generally requires more time, effort, and in some cases, staff. |
| chucho | Posted – 8/21/2008 5:20:20 PM | show profile | flag this post PS: Thanks Seafarer for the links. |
| HisGirlFriday | Posted – 8/21/2008 9:49:05 PM | show profile | flag this post "What I avoid is the kind-sorta work -- projects I kinda-sorta find interesting for money that is kinda-sorta OK." - Wow - that really hit the nail on the head for me - that's exactly the bind I've found myself in lately. I have two clients that are total keepers - good money, great subjects, good editing experience, great names on the resume. But everything else is "kinda-sorta." Hm. Will have to work on that - but thanks for crystalizing it so perfectly for me. |
