But no, really, what's the future of this profession?

Writing skills, as in cranking out a 2,000-word takeout, might not. The reporting skills that is involved in such a process, however, are.

 

PR, marketing, technical writing ... two functions that exist in every single company in the universe and a third that exists in most companies.

Other than those conpanies, I suppose you're right.

 

Let's just be honest here. You are questioning your chosen occupation/career path. There's a reason you are questioning it. Like any good reporter, which you obviously are, you've analyzed the situation, present and future, and you've seen the writing on the wall.

This profession, unless you are a Wetzel, Passan, etc. is pretty much doomed. Only the best will survive at the gigs you're hoping to aspire to someday. Think about it. Your friends that were laid off during the recession didn't get jobs because there were no jobs to be had. The profession is dying. You know it. I know it. The whole damned world knows it. It's only a matter of time

Now, over the next 10-20 years, the safest places to be are much like you said. Smaller, local dailies that cover their high schools or their local university religiously and have a dedicated readership and fan base that cares. Perhaps some of the professional teams and their local papers too. But have you checked the staffs at the metros lately? They're hurting and that hurt is only going to get worse. Eventually those places will be gutted and end up like Detroit and New Orleans, etc.

Where is it all going?

There's no clear-cut answer, but as long as the information is so easily obtainable, free and can be passed along in an instant by a text message, on a message board, on Twitter or Facebook, etc., then there's no need for newspapers. Fanboys and Sports bloggers along with aggregate journalism have watered down the industry and diluted the value of all reporters' work and especially the columnists' work. Opinions don't mean shit compared to how much they used to mean. Columnists used to influence the way people think and they actually had power. Columnists are practically invisible now.

This business will virtually be gone in 25 years as far as the print product is concerned, probably much much sooner than that.

If you are young, I'd consider my age and where I want to be in 15-20 years. It's not likely you'll be doing this, though.

Bottom line: Your concerns and fears are real and justified. You should have an evacuation route mapped out for when the time comes. I would not suggest riding the storm out to anyone. There will be nothing left once it's over.

 

I won't add my Fredrick negativity, only to say this post says it all. I'll repeat his sentiment: "Yes it's a dead end and time to get out and you know that already." Dead.Buried.Gone (now if you want to make pennies on some beat in the future you might be able to actually be employed, but I suspect benefits will be a thing of the past everywhere).

 

I think the thread title is something anyone and everyone who is in newspapers needs to think long and hard about. I really believe I got into newspapers at precisely the wrong time. By the time I was experienced enough to handle a small metro type job, those jobs completely dried up. Add in the idea that bigger papers are more willing to pay kids straight out of school a shitty wage to take on big beats, and you're left entirely in limbo. Almost 40, staring at the reality that you'll be lucky to make more money than your age at any point in your career, knowing that upward mobility is limited.

I don't want this to come off as a rant about youngsters getting jobs. It's not. There is a lot of talent in that pool and they're handling it well. I look at the latest hires at the Washington Post, and they have youth on all of their major beats, from the Caps to the Nats to the Redskins. I just know that 20 years ago, the idea of a 23 or 24 year old being a beat writer at a national metro covering a pro beat seemed pretty far fetched. But there's a reality that if you're in your 30s and you're still at a medium-sized or small daily, you're probably going to be stuck there forever unless you decide to make a change.

 

I had the same thought, Cosmo. One reason I'm no longer in the business full-time.

 

A better title: "What the hell am I still doing here?" The current title is a bit more diplomatic, though.

I ask myself this more and more every day, as we (the profession, not my newsroom specifically) become more clickbaity, much less about the vegetables and more about the dessert.

 

There's an opposite trend, wicked, which my dead tree edition of the Globe had an article on today. Harvard Business Review, the journal of the B-school, is thriving. They revamped to focus on digital, ran fewer long form and scholarly publication type articles, and now have their highest circulation of 280,000, with digital sales making up for lost ad revenue and then some. Of course, the kicker is that a subscription is $100, a sum the high executive class the publication is aimed at can easily afford, but nobody else would bother. I predict we'll see two forms of journalism. Pure clickbait for the masses, and many smaller outfits presenting specialized information at a significant price for specialized audiences that want/need it.

 

One thing I know: I don't know the last time when I read about some retiring long-time editor who wrote some farewell "I still believe in newspapers" tripe on Poynter or Romenesko. They used to be monthly staples. Heck, even Romenesko retired and Poynter's new news site doesn't really try anymore.

 

As a copy editor at a place where circulation trends are much like those detailed in "The sky is falling on print newspapers faster than you think," I've got a pretty good idea where the future is headed for me. There already are rumblings of a copy-desk "reorg" to be announced during the company's traditional budget-cutting season in the fall, if not sooner. My one remaining goal in the biz is to be able to leave on my own terms instead of being frog-walked out of the building by security. I'll be able to access retirement accounts without incurring early-withdrawal penalties in approximately three years -- but at this point those funds aren't quite sufficient to support an early retirement. And counting on my job to last another three years may be asking too much. The long-term outlook may include part-time editing and maybe even writing gigs for non-newspaper organizations to help pay the bills. And there's always teaching -- Lord knows the demand in this part of the country is high for warm bodies who are interested in teaching, and the schoolkids here need a ton of help with things I'm OK at, such as spelling and grammar.

 

No one knows the answer to the original question; how many of us could have imagined the changes that have taken place over the last 10-15 years?

Later this year it'll mark 40 years that I've been in the business, so I don't fret about the future of the industry as much as I could, or should, because I'll be retiring in another year or two.

What gives me pleasure is the ability to spend two or three hours with the Sunday NYT, to have someone explore and explain a subject I find interesting. I know I'm the exception in this world where people want their news in three minutes bites and videos, but I still love good writing. I love information. I love to learn. Will newspapers still be the vehicle that provides that? It doesn't look like it, but I don't know what the alternative is.

 

Point is that, to me, those are barely even different fields, and they're the only ones where journalism skills really might apply. And, those fields are so saturated with people qualified and seeking such jobs that your chances hardly amount to you'll always be in demand (or hired). It's a supply/demand thing, and there is ample supply for the demand. That's easy to realize once you start looking for and applying for such positions. It often takes ex-journalists a long time to get hired in something outside of newspapers or Web sites, and the reasons for that are telling.