Bill Conlin on the business

This is getting insane. Seriously.

You've always had to work hard. You've always needed to want it. But when the business is shrinking, the reality is there are fewer opportunities.

There used to be 1,000 jobs available. Now there are 300. That means that no matter how hard they work, no matter how badly they want it, 700 people aren't getting hired.

 

So give up.
The 300 will thank you.

 

Thank you.

And the other reality is: 10 years ago, that 28-year-old is NOT designing the Election Day cover at the Washington Post because they were hiring more experienced, more expensive -- and, arguably, more qualified -- designers to do those important pages. It's not just a matter of working hard, although I'm sure that designer does. It's because those positions are only open because the people who would (and, arguably, should) be doing that work are no longer there.

As a 26-year-old myself, I have no doubt I've benefited from the fact that older people all around me are getting laid off and I've been handed more responsibility whether I've earned it or not. In many cases, I think I have earned it, and I've worked hard to get where I am. But I can't ignore the fact that at least some of those responsibilities have opened up because hard-working people above me got laid off and I've been there to pick up the slack.

 

I know, I remember it. That's why I'd like to hear his take on this.

And to be clear, I'm not doubting anyone's work ethic.

But talent comes into this. And I'm the first one to say that this is 80 percent craft, 20 percent talent. I've argued that vehemently on here with people. But if that 20 percent isn't recognized and nurtured, if a young reporter doesn't fall in with the right mentors ... he/she can want it all he/she wants. Ain't happening.

Again, you're coming off like the guy who thinks he runs a 4.3 40 simply because he tries harder than everybody else.

One more time with emphasis - my biggest objection was with your statement that people shouldn't do this "for the money." If you don't want this to be a career, start a blog or go write for Bleacher Report. Write poetry for all I care. To me, part of "making it" is earning a solid living. I didn't get into this just to see the inside of the clubhouse and tell my pals about it.

 

You could do no greater disservice to someone than try to tell them there's a place for them in this business, as long as they "want it."

The reality is there are fewer jobs and anybody who goes into this business -- God bless 'em -- had better go into it with their eyes wide open to the reality of the industry.

Part of that reality is that jobs are disappearing at a shocking rate and, given the overall economy, it isn't likely to get better soon.

So work hard, WANT IT, but also have a Plan B. Because there might not be a spot for you, no matter how much you want it.

 

Too much blaming the victim going on here.

And I keep hearing that line in "Allentown" in my head, about the disillusionment of finding out it wasn't true when teachers told students that things will be great "if we work hard, if we behave."

 

"I always figured it was talent made a man big, you know, if I was the best at something. I mean, we're the guys they come to see. Without us, there ain't a ballgame. Yeah, but look who's holding the money. ... Talent don't mean nothin'." -- David Strathairn as Eddie Cicotte, "Eight Men Out" (1988).

 

Wow.

Mr. Kindred . . . . if you did not post under a name that so many recognize as having produced some entertaining sports journalism once upon a time, I suspect you and your attitude would be shouted down like so many of the more offensive dunces who have trolled here.

Whitlock without the sexism. And with a healthy disregard for the current realities of journalism.

This is offensive to those of us who have patiently attempted to explain these things calmly, even as you continuously cast stones that show your utter cluelessness regarding this particular subject.

(And yes, I'm anonymous and blah blah blah).

 

I guess we're at that point, or past it, where a thread unravels, name-calling begins, and "offensive dunces" are called out for their "utter cluelessness." But I'll risk another minute to say to Waylon that I never said people "shouldn't do this for the money." I said I knew no one who "got into the business for the money." There's no advice in my sentence, it's a statement of my experience. Of course we expect to get paid, and we expect to get paid more the better we do; that's a given, but my decision (and the decisions of people I've been close to for years) to enter journalism was not based on financials.
Also, Waylon, I never once suggested that desire equals ability; if it did, I'd have been a professional baseball player, I wanted that a lot more than I wanted to type for a living. Again, when I said you had to want to succeed, the unspoken given in that sentence is that you begin with the necessary talent. The world is full of talented people who fritter it away; some refuse to try, thus assuring themselves they will not fail. They are a sad lot.

 

Name calling?

I simply call it like I see it.

You're backpedaling now, Kindred. But you did not come off in this thread like the guy who has earned respect. You came off like someone from a bygone era who could not understand the fact that things aren't that way anymore. Telling someone to quit after they explained to you just how this business is . . . that took the cake. There's always been more to this business than simply talent and hard work. And now, that is more true than ever. Making stories "sing" is no longer enough.

And as for the earlier worship of days gon by in this thread by other posters: Dick Young was aptly named. Swearing into a broadcast jockey's mike . . . what a relic.

 

Which I duly noted, Piotr, in regards to Young's crass behavior. The point you conveniently overlook was the broader one: at a time when this business was in just as wicked a freefall as it is now (don't take my word for it; look at how many newspapers there were in 1946, when Young broke in, as opposed to 1976 or so, when he really started losing his fastball, and think of the thousands and thousands who lost their jobs along the way) he pioneered a way to keep the medium relevant. That's all I said.

And you know something? Cursing in a microphone is a whole lot more pro-active than simply pissing into the wind. Sorry. If that puts me in the same category as Mr. Kindred, it is a stockade I will gladly inhabit.

Mike Vaccaro

 

Cursing in a microphone is like pissing into the wind.

Neither accomplishes a damn thing, except to show poor judgment.

Young's pioneering ways are beyond reproach. Cursing into a microphone does not fall into that category.