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

They'll still need custodians and lumberjacks in a decade.

It really is going to be fascinating to see what happens to newspapers over the next decade or two. I tend to think the really big ones and the really little ones will be OK for the longest amount of time, and it will be everything in between that goes away.

 

I don't know any full-time journalists working second jobs, including a handful making less than $30,000. I wonder how many do.

 

At my current shop there are four — it was five, but one of them took another job elsewhere. That's not counting a couple others who are taking night classes to change careers. We have a total of 14 full timers.

And yours truly is looking into it.

 

It's very hard to work a second job because usually your shit reporting job that pays you $18,000 for a (theoretical) 40 hours work is really more like 60, plus those additional hours come at all kinds of crazy-ass hours, limiting the time available to work your second job.

But, if your paper goes off the floor at 1:30 a.m., you can usually get to Tim Horton's to work the 2 a.m.-11 a.m. morning shift at the drive through.

Then back to work all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed at 4 p.m. for the night shift at the paper.

Unless there is a noontime meeting or something they want you to cover too.

 

This is a good time to recount my old story about working at my first paper, where the publisher called the News Editor (yes, the news editor, not an entry-level peon) into his office to chew him out, because Mr. Publisher had gotten word from some of his yuck-yuck Rotary Club buddies around town that Mr. News Editor (with a wife and a child) was using food stamps to buy food at the local grocery stores, and that "Looked Bad For The Paper," so Mr. Publisher wanted to "strongly suggest" that Mr. News Editor do his grocery shopping a couple towns away, 25 miles or so.

 

You must work for the best paper in the country.

 

First of all, if you count freelancing -- and you should -- tons of them are. Second of all, even if you don't count freelancing, there are some. I was one before I got out of the newspaper biz (if you count freelancing, I was working three jobs).

That said, I still freelance and have a part-time job even though I now have a full-time job out of the biz.

 

I never saw it as a calling, just a job I figured I liked doing, and I did for 19 years. I did have people tell me "Don't go into journalism. Newspapers are dying. Everything will be on the internet within five years." I responded by saying, "Someone has to write what is on the internet."

I still believe that general line of thinking. The only problem is no one has figured out how to make a profit off the web they care to share with the employees, and they not only want you to write for the paper AND web but shoot photos and video while you're at it for less money than you were paid five years earlier. No thanks. I'm happy with my new life.

 

I wasn't counting freelancers or part-timers, which is what I meant (even if it admittedly was not clear) when I said "full-time journalists." I was only counting those who have full-time employment in the news media.

I'll be sure to tell my bosses you said that.

That's rough, for all the reasons Starman mentioned. Full-time journalism jobs require so much flexibility that it would be tough for me to imagine balancing my schedule with a second job.

 

Da man's point is freelancing on the side should be considered a second job.

 

Best post on this thread and definitely hits the spot. The hours are just bad enough to screw up any chances of landing an outside gig.

 

Do you really want to know how bad it is pay wise, take a gander at Journalismjobs.com some time and peek at what is being offered as salary. Those figures don't lie.