Journalism Majors and Journalists- Have some questions... (skills, degree, school)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So I am a student getting ready to transfer to university in about another 6 months. I am an older student with a great grade point average who ostensibly went forth to get an engineering degree. I realize that I am not equal to the math, and in any case my interest in people and culture in general has overrode my initial plans. I realize I above all that I am interested in far too much to figure out just one major.
So I have decided to think about journalism. I really am fascinated with art history and Russia as well as crime, social problems of all sorts, Mexico, etc. I have spent most of my time as an adult reading nonfiction and I love Tina Goldberg, who wrote two fantastic books I practically inhaled called "Children of Cain" about Latin America and "The Haunted Land", about the post-Communist Eastern Europe. It was reading those that made me think, "what about doing what she does?"
But the thing that makes me balk is this sort of crass journalistic practice of shoving the mic in someone's face, walking up to people's front doors and asking them questions like, "how did you feel when your daughter's head was mailed to you?" or something equally grotesque. Perhaps I need new models of journalistic integrity in my life, hence this post.
Is it really all about being intrusive? How does one approach journalism with integrity? I have always been told by others that I have a way with people. Its quite strange, really, because people always wind up telling me their gritty stories right away. i have noticed it in all my jobs and my social life as well and it used to be quite a burden, really, at times, because I am enormously empathetic, ridiculously so, to the point that I can barely watch the news. This seems like it would be quite a problem for a journalist. How could all those things work together? My absolute total curiosity about human beings and culture and art and everyone's stories with this need to not be intrusive?
I would love anyone's thoughts on this, and apologize if this is in the wrong thread.
So I am a student getting ready to transfer to university in about another 6 months. I am an older student with a great grade point average who ostensibly went forth to get an engineering degree. I realize that I am not equal to the math, and in any case my interest in people and culture in general has overrode my initial plans. I realize I above all that I am interested in far too much to figure out just one major.
So I have decided to think about journalism. I really am fascinated with art history and Russia as well as crime, social problems of all sorts, Mexico, etc. I have spent most of my time as an adult reading nonfiction and I love Tina Goldberg, who wrote two fantastic books I practically inhaled called "Children of Cain" about Latin America and "The Haunted Land", about the post-Communist Eastern Europe. It was reading those that made me think, "what about doing what she does?"
But the thing that makes me balk is this sort of crass journalistic practice of shoving the mic in someone's face, walking up to people's front doors and asking them questions like, "how did you feel when your daughter's head was mailed to you?" or something equally grotesque. Perhaps I need new models of journalistic integrity in my life, hence this post.
Is it really all about being intrusive? How does one approach journalism with integrity? I have always been told by others that I have a way with people. Its quite strange, really, because people always wind up telling me their gritty stories right away. i have noticed it in all my jobs and my social life as well and it used to be quite a burden, really, at times, because I am enormously empathetic, ridiculously so, to the point that I can barely watch the news. This seems like it would be quite a problem for a journalist. How could all those things work together? My absolute total curiosity about human beings and culture and art and everyone's stories with this need to not be intrusive?
I would love anyone's thoughts on this, and apologize if this is in the wrong thread.
If you dread asking people awkward questions, you should not pursue journalism.
Yes, it can be done ethically and with integrity. That is the standard. But not everyone does it that way.
I also cannot think of another field in which I would make less now with 25 years of experience than I did when I graduated from college. Conglomerates have all but ruined reporting as a profession.
I think it is a field in which few people "make it."
Talk to anyone who has been in the field for a long time and they will tell you that reporting/journalism is a shadow of its former self. With the 24 hour news cycle, the emphasis is on getting the story -- regardless of whether it is accurate or not -- out as quickly as possible. The true old school journalists lament the lack of fact checking and copy editing that is now the new normal.
I was a newspaper reporter for a number of years, and I'm not a particularly forceful person. I was never comfortable with the "shoving of microphones in people's faces and asking prying, hard-hitting questions," so I took a different, less controntational approach, and still got the info I needed, and felt fine with it. You can do the job without being a crass, tabloidy ambulance-chaser type, and in my experience, people appreciate the reporters who act respectfully, to the point where they will seek you out specifically because you aren't an ass. My brother has been in the field for a little over a decade, now, and he's somewhat more comfortable than I ever was being more of a bulldog, but it's quite opposite of his gentle, easygoing personality outside of work. His reporter mode is more a workplace-specific role. He also maintains an ethical, responsible demeanor, and does a lot of social justice and advocacy reporting. He did a series a couple of winters ago that he won awards for, detailing how different agencies were treating the homeless in his city, and when one of the homeless men he'd goten to know and make friends with passed away, he was able to eulogize him.
Being respectful generally works out better than being sensationalist and intrusive.
Overall, it's an interesting job, and one that I found great for those who are deeply interested in people and their stories. But it's also very, very time-and life-consuming, at a pay rate that isn't at all commensurate with the amount of time it demands, which is the primary reason I left the field. It also is a rapidly shrinking field, which makes competition to get the jobs where you get to do the intetesting stuff pretty tight, and the jobs are far less secure, now. The main upside is that if you can get it, it's very, very interesting work.
You have almost no chance of making a decent living. It will suck out your soul with mindless town council meetings and rewriting press releases. You will find yourself at loggerheads with cops and government officials who do not want to tell you anything and have way more time and money to block you. You will work a lot of nights and weekends and holidays and unless you marry someone in the business, they will never understand why you're on call 24/7. You will be paid close to Walmart wages at many small papers. There is no upside.
Vice and all those digital media outfits pay nothing, usually. HuffPo writers work for free. There might be small core staffs that get paid something decent, but many of the digital places are here today, gone tomorrow. There is no job security.
Sure, at the respectable national or large regional papers you will be paid well and have a chance of retiring. But there are thousands of folks who will not get there. And the number of respectable and large papers is going down fast.
Just don't do it. Go work in civil service for 20 years at some mindless but pleasant and easy job, then retire at age 40 and do whatever you want. My brother-in-law worked on a factory line at GM, retired at 45, has relaxed and enjoyed himself ever since.
I know that seems like a long way away now, and you can't imagine being 40 and still having a working body, but believe me, we're still young. The difference is, he's retired and here I am, with no money and zero chance of retiring early; I'll probably die at my desk.
Yes, there have been interesting days, but if I had it all to do again, I'm not sure I would've done it. And I started in the "good" ol' days. I would *never* start in this field today.
ETA: Boy, that sounded bitter. Sorry! But really, my daughter loves writing and I'm trying desperately to steer her somewhere - anywhere! - else. There are sectors that will value your skills and aren't the news business. Don't take me to mean you're wasting your time. But start thinking about alternatives to the actual news business, while still satisfying what you want to do with your life.
But the thing that makes me balk is this sort of crass journalistic practice of shoving the mic in someone's face, walking up to people's front doors and asking them questions like, "how did you feel when your daughter's head was mailed to you?" or something equally grotesque. Perhaps I need new models of journalistic integrity in my life, hence this post.
Are you saying this is the norm or do any instance of bad behavior in a specific profession turn you off from that field completely? It's almost as if you are saying becoming a journalist will require that you engage in this type of behavior which I find very puzzling.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.