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

Thanks for the replies, all. Some thoughtful, and sobering, posts here.

I can say that I've undoubtedly benefited from the trend of higher-profile jobs going to younger people. I'm in my mid-30s and have been covering pretty high-profile beats going on 10 years now. The flip side of that movement, though, is that the pay for us younger reporters isn't really comparable to what our predecessors were making 15 years ago in the same positions. You could argue, easily, those jobs are more difficult now, too, given the constant and ever-expanding list of demands (though in some ways they're easier, and if you're beat on a story that defeat usually lasts minutes or hours instead of days).

There's also the reality of not really having an answer to the question of what's next. To me that's one of the worst parts of this profession these days -- there's no clear path to bigger and better things. You could do outstanding work on a beat and never really move up. You could do mediocre work and never really move down, either. In other fields it seems like there's clear paths to advancement, and it usually involves being great at what you do. That's not to say talented people haven't put themselves in great positions in sports journalism, but it seems there's a lot less upward mobility that results in increased job security and a better salary.

Even the coveted national jobs, outside of very few, don't seem on the surface like they have much security. I don't know. I'm in a good spot -- for now -- and should probably just be thankful that I am. But it's also like, damn ... where do you hope to go while it looks like the business is completely crumbling all around you?

 

To anyone else reading this, note that this is a completely untrue appraisal of people's chances of getting hired, as attested by many members of SJ.com and quite a few of everyone's former colleagues as well. But that's really all I have to say about it.

 

Let's not kid ourselves here, either ... this is also a lot about money.

 

"People" encompasses a pretty wide range of age groups. I would say the 25-year-old's chances of finding a job quickly (and, more important, at his current salary) are much, much greater than the 55-year-old's.

Heck, one of my former colleagues (late 20s) is in the final stages of FAA training to be an air traffic controller. Has a great career ahead of him. Not exactly an option for me, however, as I am one year from the mandatory retirement age for air traffic controllers.

 

If you do look for other types of work, do don't just have writing an editing skills. Most of us are excellent at things such as time management, handling deadline pressure, speaking to groups and or executives, project managment skills, juggling tasks, presenting, training, working with computer programs, social media, video, photo, etc., etc., etc. All sought-after skills.

It's how you present yourself. If you are any kind of editor or assistant editor, you have project managment experience -- whether you realize it or not -- and might want to look into PMP certification.

 

Our business is turning into Logan's Run. If you're over 40, you might as well be dead.
The prestige jobs are going to younger people because they're cheaper, more energetic and more enthusiastic about working long hours. Being a college or pro beat writer is a 24-7 job. You have to live the job, and it's hard to do that if you have real world responsibilities like a family and a mortgage.
When you're 24 or 25, though, you don't know that yet. By the time you start creeping up on 30 and start wanting those things, you also need a little extra money to pay for them. In the world of newspapers, those things conflict. By the time you're ready to settle in one place, you need some job and financial security. Newspapers aren't in that business anymore. You might get some of the former, if you're willing to sacrifice the latter. If you get more money, you put a target on your back for the next round of layoffs.
It used to be you'd hit your prime in your late 30s or early 40s, when you had the experience and connections to start truly moving up the ladder. Now it's the opposite. If you haven't "made it" by then you probably never will, at least not without sacrificing the things we all want as we get older. If you don't hit a home run with your first job or two out of college, you might never make it out of the minors.

Another issue is the devaluing of experience. I've been "stuck" at my small paper for going on 20 years. At first, I wasn't good enough to move up. Then there was a period where I enjoyed it and didn't want to. Then the business collapsed and I was afraid to, because where I was at was safer than the constant rounds of layoffs farther up the food chain. Nowadays, I just don't know what I want to do that I'd be good at.
So now I'm the old man in the newsroom, and it's getting increasingly awkward. The hours are only getting longer and the job more difficult, because newspapers these want kegs of champagne on a six-pack of Schlitz budget. I can't work a 14-hour day and then turn around and be fine the next day like I could 10 or even five years ago. It's physically harder to do.
I'm making OK money compared to my co-workers, but only because I was here and had raises before the industry turned south. Now I sometimes get the feeling that I'm almost a financial liability, and they'd be happy to see me go so they could save $10,000 a year by hiring someone cheaper.
The other day our publisher was talking to a tour group and was asked a question about how long reporters typically stay. His answer was honest -- two or three years -- but also depressing, because he said he looks at our operation as a training ground for people to come in and move on. And there I am, the guy who's been here forever and has no real plans to move on. Kinda makes me feel like a weirdo, or a failure on some level, even though I've done a lot of good things in the business and should have a lot of good years ahead of me.
All of this, and I'm not even 40 yet.
God only knows what this will feel like 10 years from now.

 

In my mid-sized city, many of the recent PR, government spokesman, communucations hires in the area have gone to people from the paper. Some young, some 30ish, some older.

 

To put this in perspective from a copy editor/designer viewpoint: As recently as 10 years ago, my former paper's news copy desk had four entry-level management positions, and there'd usually be three or four copy editors/designers applying whenever one of these jobs opened up. Now there are ... zero positions. Same deal on the newsgathering side -- where there used to be four or five assistant metro editors, there's now just one. So a reporter looking to become a manager doesn't have many options.

A former co-worker who made it to the highest level of sportswriting recently gave an interview about the state of the industry, and he said it now consists mainly of a small group at the top and a large entry-level group of young journalists working long hours for minimal pay, with those in the "middle class" being the meat in the sandwich and rapidly disappearing. Not long after he gave the interview, his high-profile gig was eliminated, so even being at the "top" is no guarantee.

 

This may be one of the best "What's happening to our industry" threads I've read on here in quite some time ... maybe ever. Our profession isn't dying, but the way most of us grew up in newspapers is. People still want coverage and stories, but the model is changing and we should embrace it no matter how bitter we can be about it. I miss the days of trying to beat the other paper on a story or having something that nobody else has. The days of writing a story and it not being seen until the next day when people buy the paper are virtually over. I'm guilty of it as a reader myself. I don't care who wrote what about the Super Bowl. I watched it, saw the highlights and read stuff on the web before I went to bed. Then the Twitter wars and social media capture everything the next day before even newspaper websites do.

We, as journalists, have to think forward about what's next instead of saying poor pitiful me, what do I do now. Our industry has never really done that. Sure, we've tried videos, blogs, tweets and other avenues, but our skills as reporters and writers are still what's sought after. Newspaper owners sadly try to continue the same business model that worked 20, 30 and 40 years ago. It doesn't work the same as it used to. People who sold vacuum cleaners door-to-door quit doing it when their job became outdated, yet people still buy vacuum cleaners. Sears quit sending their catalogs to everyone on Earth yet they're still in business.

I recently left full-time newspaper management in a small town and now I freelance for people all over the country from news to technology to sports. I do PR and social media marketing for local businesses and I make more than I did as newspaper publisher. However, I believe there's a new, different model out there to revive our industry. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but I have something in mind. I've been thinking about this model for about 10 years, and it involves heavy web, social media and a slimmed-down print version (think tabloid size) that has smaller recaps but is heavy on advances and features. It mirrors more of a magazine model but keeps our newspaper integrity, because in the end our readers still want nice photos, solid reporting, integrity and ethics. This is whether we're covering an all-star baseball game or a local political debate for the city council or school board.

It's all about getting eyeballs to whatever medium you're working with, and that's what advertisers want. They'll advertise on the web, print or both. Newspapers didn't show courage when Ebay and Craigslist stole the majority of their classified ads. Instead, it led to massive layoffs. We the journalists need to lead the force into a new era, because our newspaper owners certainly aren't going to do it, and I quit following their lead a year ago and feel I'm better off for it.

 

Another thing to think about, I don't know what the demographics of most newsroom leadership positions are, but don't even think some 30 year old newsroom manager is going to look at hiring someone who has been in the business longer.

 

A paper near here (not a tiny paper either, still probably over 50k) has a kid who might be 32 as the executive editor.

 

Remember the idiot editor that worked at Joe's Crab Shack some fucking place who thought it was fine to print a column by some jackass that pretended like he was in the military to get free drinks (Stolen Valor), lied to a veteran and disrespected women and thought it was funny?

She probably wasn't 3o. The columnist was clearly a mid-20s dumbass punk. Those are the kind of idiots you get when you sacrifice education and experience for a few bucks. Your product turns to shit.

Newspapers are dying. Don't fool yourself into thinking they'll be around in 25 years.