The qualities you'd prioritize when hiring journalists

I suspect I'll get some good answers around here, and it is of some vague application for me.

Put yourself in the shoes of hiring for these three spots:

Editor - More like a copy/line/metro editor than the newsroom leader

Columnist/Radio Host talent/Podcaster type

Beat Writer/GA Reporter

What would you look for in terms of traits? And what value does diversity - of life experiences, of thought, or race and gender - play into each?

I'll hang up and listen for awhile.

 

My No. 1 is resourcefulness.

I'm reminded of Mike Tyson's quote that "Everybody has a plan until they get hit in the mouth." When it comes to technology, I'm not expecting you to reconfigure my network, but if your equipment is acting up, are you smart/composed enough to figure out what's wrong or develop a plan B? Do you have the ability to get me a good story if not everyone calls you back? Because experience doesn't do me much good unless you can apply it.

 

Really enjoyed these thoughts.

I’ll be the first to admit that a good majority of journalists my age (36) never got there. I never developed it, and it’s why though a promising young writer and a hard worker, I ran into dead end after dead end. We always had technology as a crutch to fill those column inches and never actually had to dig. My stuff always ended up ten miles wide and three inches deep.

 

I'm 36, actually. In my relatively limited experiences, I've found that the most useful people I've worked with didn't necessarily have the most experience, it's the ones who were good problem solvers and put in consistent effort. I can (should?) teach you to avoid mistakes, and if you're resourceful, you should be able to acquire the knowledge you need to apply your skills. But if you need hand-holding to put 2-and-2 together, or I have to convince you to give a damn, there's not much I can fix about that.

 

UP Chip makes a good point about resourcefulness. Especially because many copy editors/paginators work after hours, when IT support is from afar at best (if anyone replies at all). The ability to use a MacGyver-like workaround is valuable.

My other big one would be news judgment. There's breaking news just before deadline, and you have to decide how to play it. A knowledge of what's important to the community, and your audience, is valuable.

(or maybe I'm just saying that because, in my late 40s, that's about all I have over younger journalists ... )

 

I think I'd know if a person was right after an hourlong conversation in different settings i.e. go to lunch, walk Main Street, etc.

 

right. But what are you looking for in that hourlong chat?

 

In general for every hire:

Curiosity
Honesty
Decency
Diligence
Resourcefulness
Sense of humor


In a columnist:

Imagination
Intelligence
Breadth
Depth
Speed
Fairness
Passion


In an editor:

Patience
Empathy
Unflappability
Common Sense
Deep knowledge of desk specifics (copy, Metro, National, Arts, Sports, etc )


In a GA reporter:

Willingness
Doggedness
Impatience
Improvisation
Fast learner
Clean copy


A lot of this depends upon where you are of course. Which town or city and what specific readership. Which beats and which sports and which desks. I know minority hires are tough to hold onto for mid-sized news organizations, because those talented young men and women move up to bigger markets.

But bigger markets have always beckoned the most talented, so hire the best people you can - the ones who best reflect a commitment to journalism and to their community - and keep them as long as you can.

 

Maybe it's a copout but there's no thing. I would know.

 

Azrael's comment about hiring the best people you can, and keep them as long as you can, is a real thing for places at the lower end of the food chain.

Do you hire someone with local connections, who would probably stick around for a while, but may not be the most talented candidate? Or do you go for an out-of-towner with superior skills, knowing that he or she will be gone to the next best job within a year?

I think it's best to have a mixture of both. Too many locals/longtimers and things get complacent and boring. Too many hot shots and you don't have enough local knowledge and news judgment.

 

Great list. I most agree with the GA piece, though I'll fudge a little bit on the Clean Copy, at first, if I know I have a person who'll dive on the floor for a loose ball, so to speak.

I dunno what you do about keeping talent. Media conglomerates now own so much of local media outlets and would just as soon pay no one well, ignoring the fact that a few excellent go-to journalists - paid really well - attract more audience than five who function as stenographers. Local media is too dependent these days on people caring about their communities enough to see what the local rag or local radio got someone to say on the record. Problem is, not enough care in that way. You need skilled journalists who can make them care.

 

I'll second and third resourcefulness, news awareness and particularly curiosity. I wanted someone who wanted to know more.

I'll tackle the radio side, because that's where I handled the majority of my hirings.

Just like your best five clips in print, EVERYBODY worth hiring in radio should have a killer air check. If you don't, you'd better get one, because while the resume tells me what you've done and where you've been, that alone won't get you a face-to-face with the news director/program director/station owner.

I'm listening for the right "sound," which is unique to every position, regardless of gender, racial makeup, age or experience. A morning drive co-anchor for a news talker is going to sound different than a lifestyle reporter for an easy listening station or someone holding down the evening/overnight shift on sports radio. I'm hoping to pair voices to complement my existing staff. Authoritative? Pleasant? Knowledgable? It's not always a radio voice like John Facenda that is required, as much as someone who interacts well with the target audience.

Back then, I had an entire afternoon to screen applicants, so in three hours, I needed to have a good handle on what I could expect: How would they represent the station? How well would they take criticism and suggestions from me? How well would they interact with the rest of the staff? And perhaps most importantly, how much potential was there for them to grow and prosper in this particular job? Did they show curiosity?

Depending on the position, I made sure to "role play" with each applicant, with the idea of learning more about how they thought on their feet, how well they maintained their composure and how they sounded in real life situations.

If they wanted to anchor, I'd have them read that morning's newscast for me, PLUS then ask them to ad-lib from a made-up scenario (accident, fire, election results, weather situation) where I gave them a limited amount of information at first and add to it as the simulation continued. That's a skill you can only acquire from experience.

If it was play-by-play, I'd have them do any game or sport off the top of their head leading up to a commerial break, just to hear their cadence and clarity. If it was for a call-in show, I'd act as a caller and interact with them to see how they dealt with the audience and how well they stayed on topic and kept the conversation moving.

Sometimes you immediately know you've got the right person. Sometimes you never find them and have to make a choice based on your instincts. Many times, you know the person is overqualified for the position and won't stay long because they'll move up quickly. Other times, you may see potential you might be able to tap into.

It's never an easy "one size fits all" situation. I've had the "perfect" candidate flop because she suddenly had an unexpected case of mike fright once she was alone in the studio. I've also hired kids right out of college who went on to anchor in Los Angeles.