WSJ survey: Newspaper reporter is worst job in U.S.

How many of us saw the thread title and said, "Well, duh... "

 

For the sake of accuracy, the survey was by CareerCast.com.

And I think being an actuary at the Department of Defense would be a pretty interesting job. Being one for Progressive would not.

 

How do they come up with this stuff anyway?

 

It's explained in the article.

 

On a serious note, you wonder how something like this impacts the industry. Editors love to throw out the "it's a calling" line and other BS, and sure I doubt they'll have a problem hiring people who figure they'll put in a couple years at a paper before grad school, but you would think this would be somewhat of a wakeup call for an industry that has taken the front-end workers for granted for too long.
I wouldn't expect salaries to rise, but it would be nice if working conditions and work load could be addressed.

 

It's not that it's a horrible profession, it's just that there is ZERO job security and while things in other professions may improve as the economy gets better, things are never going to improve for newspaper reporters.

I really wonder if I would have switched majors 20+ years ago if someone had told me what it would be like now. It probably wouldn't have made a difference, I was too stubborn and at the time, I definitely saw it as a calling.

Things may level off for a few years, but I think as the baby boomers die out, newspapers will as well.

 

The specificity bothers me a bit. Does "newspaper reporter" include all newspaper editorial employees? How about reporters for websites?

I only know of one newspaper that does not have a website, and most larger newspaper companies would scoff at the term "newspaper reporter" as the news is expected to be reported in a timely manner for the Web first.

 

When you have college grads willing to work for free just so they can "get some clips together," this business is doomed. Honestly, there is no way this business will survive as long as people out there get a charge out of seeing their name in print or online.

True story, I recently interviewed for the job of media relations director at a circle track. Not going to say which one but it is one of the biggest ones in my area. First thing the track owner said to me was, "The guy that used to do this job did it as a hobby. He didn't charge us for it. He just wanted to be around the races." I thanked him for his time and excused myself. If that's the mindset they have at this track, that the media relations director job is so unimportant that they did not have a professional doing it for 10 years, I don't want to be the one that cleans up the mess and has to justify his salary week after week.

That's what newspapers and legitimate online news outlets are getting away with, having people write for them without much compensation. Unless that changes, which I don't see happening, it is only going to get worse.

 

I hear they're ok.

They sleep all night and work all day too.

 

Another factor not considered in the story: what percentage in a given field works a second job to get by?

Needless to say, journalists would rate highly in this dubious category.

And it affects what we cover, too -- on several recent occasions at my shop, breaking news didn't get covered because the skeleton crew of reporters, photogs and copy editors (who sometimes cover things in a pinch) were either working at their second job or buried in pages.

Not that anyone in management even noticed ...

 

When your occupation falls below custodial engineer (janitor) and lumberjack, it's definitely a sign to think about getting out.

 

Why>? Are the janitors and lumberjacks hiring?