Why they hate us

I decided to become a journalist during the halcyon days of All the President’s Men
I thought it was a profession where you were judged by what you wrote and reported
It didn’t take long to find out how naive I was
But I wonder if we don’t carry plenty of blame for our situation
Twitter has changed things from get it right to get it first
When we’re wrong it gets circulated quickly
We don’t have the manpower to get things right because copy editors are a dying breed, or have been centralized
Plus many newspaper people have gigs on networks
Easier for Trumpers to pick on the failing NYT and WaPo
And Biden isn’t wrong when he says we’re fixated on cost instead of policy
A lot of this is just the way it is but journalism has changed, and not for the better
Written by a happy retiree

 

We don't have the manpower to get things right because... the "talent pool" (at least in TV/broadcast) is way down from a decade ago. My industry doesn't attract the best journalism grads anymore. We get the "B-/C students" who can't spell and aren't curious.

 

I don't think people hate us as much as they've forgotten us (speaking as a retired newspaper desk monkey). I'm sorry to say that, because I think newspapers were an anchor point in the flow of ideas and information, good and bad. I don't think any institution has stepped up to take over that role, which has led to an erosion of trust.

My experience stems from work in my metro's "scrappy upstart" paper, which merged during my stay with the bigger "paper of record." We had the AM cycle, which gave us the edge on breaking news, while the "paper of record" evolved into an analyst and explainer.

I think the cycles also affected the papers' editorial structure. The AM was definitely an editor's paper -- we'd slice and dice freely to accommodate the relatively small newshole. Reporters were the showcase at the PM, and they were free to set the tone of their stories. I saw numerous reporters pursuing an agenda at the PM, acting as advocates as well as news gatherers.

Getting back to being an anchor point: I think Politifact does a pretty good job at that, laying out the facts in a comprehensive, objective manner before drawing a conclusion. Unfortunately it's footprint isn't nearly big enough. You can't piss a bonfire out when someone else is pouring gasoline on it.

 

Been in this biz for almost 30 years, and still plugging away.

Biggest thing that's changed IMHO isn't the internet and/or Facebook (although that's a biggie), it's the change in how the public wants/uses information. Everything is political now, and I mean everything.

Put it this way: when Jake from State Farm, who started this thread, began in the business, reporting on any type of mass shooting or other tragic loss of life would begin with the basics of what happened, why it happened and how it could be prevented from happening again.

Today: What was the race/political persuasion/internet history of the shooter, or the victim. How will this event help the Trump or anti-Trump faction of our country?

It's all about the spin factor today, and has been for at least the past 20 years. THAT'S why they hate us, and why, to some extent, we hate ourselves.

 

I got my first major market news job in 1976. They hated us then, but they did it by phone. And you should have seen the mail. Vile.

A colleague of mine was assassinated by white supremacists in 1984. They hated us then, too, without reference or regard to the quality of the work.

During the Clinton impeachment, I worked part-time on the OpEd slush pile at a major national newspaper. Even after the initial security screenings downstairs, I can't begin to tell you the number of lumpy, greasy, powdery packages and manila envelopes we had to process. Bomb threats, fake anthrax, death threats. They hated us.

They've always hated us. And they hate us still.

 

I think I'm a bit younger than most of the people on this thread, so take this as a Gen X perspective...but I think the echo chamber of social media and Fox News has galvanized the press-hating types. A generation ago, they had nowhere to go to complain about how much we sucked and how unfair we were. I remember working with a guy at a summer 9-5 factory-type job in college who hated the media with the power of a thousand suns b/c we were too liberal, blah blah blah. But where could he get emboldened? There was barely any Internet and Fox News wasn't around yet. Now, Fox News confirms everyone's beliefs 24/7 and you can find a community of like-minded people anywhere these days, good and bad. Then throw a cult leader "serving" as "president" and there you go.

 

I also think that when people have an image of the media that they hate, it's the things they see on TV. It's the national media, the big time outfits. I think they've lost grasp of the fact that the troops on the ground, as it were, be it in Houston or Tallahassee or Yakima are their neighbors, possibly their friends. Just regular people doing a job that they would really like to do well. And they don't want to be blamed when a source says into the camera a blatant lie. Do we not show live clips of press conferences anymore? Is the press responsible for people blatantly lying in the moment? No, but if you talk to people they think we are. But again I think that's a based on what people think of the mainstream, national media and not the dude who lives down the street with three kids.

 

But there are a lot of things the paper down the street doesn’t cover that it used to
Some of that is downsizing thanks to the Gannett/Gatehouses of the world
Some of that is papers which fold, leaving their readers to find news by other means
A lot of them choose the Internet, giving Billy Bob Joey an excuse to say his main source of information is Brietbart

 

I am always hesitant o talk about the "good old days" because they generally were not. But as a television viewer I have given up on local news. Part of this is because I pull news and sports off the internet. But much of it is due to what I perceive as the decline in the quality of local news.

Appearance has obviously played a big role in television news for a very long time. But at one time it seems to me hat in major markets a reporter could establish himself on a beat and make a career out of it while probably getting paid more than the local print reporter on the same beat. I remember when stations a good station would have really good crime reporters,. And in Denver I remember some good science and political reporters.

My impression now is that due to the staff reductions and salary cutbacks there is really no future in being a good reporter in television. It will not be valued economically so it is anchor or bust. Am I wrong?

 

I would agree with that

 

Depends on the market. You get to some markets, like Minneapolis, Denver, Portland, Seattle and they are fantastic "storyteller" markets. These shops often have good ownership (Tegna takes a lot of hits but they do have superb reporters in each market).

Anchor or bust? Also depends -- not on the market but what a particular station thinks of you. If I left tomorrow, our ratings would not change. Wouldn't go down. Wouldn't go up. If my female co-anchor left tomorrow, we'd probably lose 15-20% over the next six months. That explains why she makes 40k more than I do

There is a serious reckoning going on in TV news right now as more and more people are leaving because the salaries are abysmal for 70% of us -- pretty much every TV news person in Markets 100+ and then, for most reporters/producers/photographers in Markets, oh, 50 and smaller. The station owners have been printing money for years but they'd kept salaries down because they could. Now they've run into a problem.

22-year-olds aren't putting up with shit treatment anymore. I admire that. I wish, years ago, I could have stood up for myself a little more. But, I was in sports and I beat out 175 tapes for my first anchor job. No leverage.