
Why journalists deserve low pay - soundsop
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0519/p09s02-coop.html
======
swombat
Very good article.

It also neatly explains why certain magazines/papers, like, for example, the
Economist, are doing fine even as the industry collapses: they provide hard,
strong value in the form of unique insight and analysis communicated extremely
clearly.

~~~
stevejalim
Perhaps "Why lazy journalists deserve low pay" would be closer to the mark.
But that's less of a reader-baiting headline, common in much of today's
journalism. Oh, the irony...

~~~
swombat
Not really. It's obvious that we don't need the "lazy" journalists, the kind
who just repost press releases with little analysis. Those are bound to go.

But we actually need less "proper" journalists too. A dozen proper,
independent news outlets are probably sufficient to cover most world news from
every important angle. Why should we need that coverage to be repeated a
thousand times, for every major city? Why does the San Francisco Chronicle
need someone covering the war in Iraq? Why does the Tribune de Genève need to
cover american politics?

There is no need for this duplication of (good) coverage by proper
journalists, when global, instant distribution is essentially free.

That is particularly true when you consider that the leading paper's stories
will anyway be duplicated a hundred times over by thousands of bloggers who
will inevitably capture all the minority viewpoints.

~~~
stevejalim
I think you're underestimating how many of the writers out there may be
freelancers/retained freelancers, rather than staff hacks. Eg the Islington
Twaddler's Silicon Valley correspondent may just be a desperate stringer,
flogging stories wherever she/he can...

~~~
swombat
Perhaps - are you saying that we need this person flogging stories?

~~~
stevejalim
No, more that that person needs to flog stories to whoever will take them,
even if that means being an X correspondent in country Y, despite their being
little link.

There's also a whole side-conversation about diversity of opinion and
reporting being key, but that does rely on high quality reporting, which we
need more of.

------
delano
This article is terribly confused. The declining state of media organizations
has nothing to do with journalists and everything to do with the manner in
which the businesses have been run over the past 20 years.

~~~
jerf
Really? What business practices would enable journalism to "survive" a
transition to a world in which their product has no value? Perhaps their
business decisions are all just whistling in the dark? If there are _no_ paths
forward for them, blaming them is counterproductive. I don't think "blame" can
accrue where there were no good decisions to be made, even in theory.

(By "survive", most people mean that while it may shrink a bit or grow a bit,
it's the same fundamental business doing the same fundamental things.)

This sort of analysis is critical. Frankly, I could sum up the article even
faster: Journalism supply has _shot through the roof_. What do expect to
happen to the price, given that demand can't shoot through the roof at
anywhere near the same speed? What does that say about the probability of
journalism "surviving"?

~~~
delano
First of all, the article speaks of journalists as a homogenous group which is
ridiculous since they are neither created equal nor do they act as a single
group. It then describes only one aspect of journalism and devalues all roles
journalists play based on that incomplete description. For example, there is
no mention of the value of investigative journalism or the historical value of
well-written, unbiased content.

From the article: _Today, ordinary adults can observe and report news, gather
expert knowledge, determine significance, add audio, photography, and video
components, and publish this content far and wide (or at least to their social
network) with ease. And much of this is done for no pay._

This is a generally correct assessment of the current situation. Where it goes
wrong is with the conclusion it draws: _"Until journalists can redefine the
value of their labor above this level, they deserve low pay."_

As long as there are businesses willing to pay for this type of content, there
will be people willing to fill those positions. It's not the responsibility of
journalists to correct this situation.

~~~
Nwallins
> First of all, the article speaks of journalists as a homogenous group which
> is ridiculous since they are neither created equal nor do they act as a
> single group.

This is not ridiculous. I think it's perfectly valid to consider the question:
"Why do journalists (in general) have low salaries?" -- More down below.

> "Until journalists can redefine the value of their labor above this level,
> they deserve low pay."

> there will be people willing to fill those positions. It's not the
> responsibility of journalists to correct this situation.

I think the article is actually quite sympathetic to journalists -- the low
pay is seen as a bad thing, and it raises the question of what journalists can
do to be better-compensated.

> For example, there is no mention of the value of investigative journalism or
> the historical value of well-written, unbiased content.

I'm not sure what you mean by historical value, but the article was quite
clear that deeply-researched, well-written, 'hard' journalism is rewarded --
because it has special value above and beyond the noise floor of the 'average'
journalist.

I think that your position and the article's are actually quite close. There
is a lot of 'average' journalism out there, and it does not provide much value
in today's world. The exceptional journalists with an understanding of value
_are_ being rewarded -- the investigative journalists you mention come to
mind.

Below I have pasted what I believe to be the thesis of the article -- I don't
think you truly disagree:

 _If value is to be created, journalists cannot continue to report merely in
the traditional ways or merely re-report the news that has appeared elsewhere.
They must add something novel that creates value. They will have to start
providing information and knowledge that is not readily available elsewhere,
in forms that are not available elsewhere, or in forms that are more useable
by and relevant to their audiences._

~~~
delano
I agree to the extent that the article argues that a higher quality product
deserves a higher value.

 _I think the article is actually quite sympathetic to journalists_

One of the reasons I said the article was confused is that it's not clear who
the target audience is. If it was sympathetic to journalists, then why the
accusatory title and overall tone?

------
dhs
One of the things I appreciate about HN is that once or twice a week, I come
across a submission which is a journalistic piece that has truth and beauty in
it. Whoever claims that journalists "produce only instrumental" and not
intrinsic value lives in a universe different from mine.

~~~
swombat
Once or twice a week is pretty bad, considering that this industry probably
produces hundreds of thousands of articles a week. I come across intrinsically
valuable blog posts much more often than I come across intrinsically valuable
news pieces, myself.

------
zcrar70
I agree with the general gist of the article, but I'm not sure I agree with
this:

"Wages are compensation for value creation"

This implies that compensation in general (not wages in particular) is always
relative to value creation, which I don't think is true for most definitions
of value (other than monetary.) 'Wages are compensation for the creation of
financial value' would be more correct.

~~~
access_denied
Wages are expression of price for labour. What's your price?

~~~
Silentio
Can't agree with you more. To create anything humans must utilize their labor.
That is where the real value lies. The "market," "capital," and the "financial
system" are nothing but totems (created by our labor) that we worship as if
they were given to us by the gods.

Interesting, too, that the author pairs harmony and beauty as having
"intrinsic" value. We <i>might</i> think of beauty as intrinsically valuable
but, once you name any created object beautiful, that beauty is rife with
cultural baggage that defines what is and what is not valuable. Which brings
me to my next point.

To call one object beautiful necessarily means that other objects are not
beautiful, or are less beautiful, or are beautiful in a different way. As far
as I'm concerned there is nothing "harmonious" about this act. Thus, how can
beauty and harmony be intrinsically valuable or "good" when beauty necessarily
excludes harmony?

I guess I'm not a big fan of moral philosophy.

~~~
philwelch
"To create anything humans must utilize their labor. That is where the real
value lies. The "market," "capital," and the "financial system" are nothing
but totems (created by our labor) that we worship as if they were given to us
by the gods."

Careful: this way lies Marxism. The value doesn't lie in the labor itself,
because if the labor was just as valuable as the product of that labor then
why not save the labor and sleep in? The value lies in what is produced. Which
is why using less labor to produce something more useful is more valuable than
using more labor to produce something useless.

"once you name any created object beautiful, that beauty is rife with cultural
baggage that defines what is and what is not valuable"

You've gone through a loop and said nothing. I think a rainbow is beautiful
because (by your account, which spuriously dispenses with the possibility of
individual taste or universal beauty) my culture values pretty colors. But in
what way does my culture value pretty colors? Answer: we find them beautiful.
You basically said "we think things are beautiful because our culture defines
what we think is beautiful", which is a simple, testable, false statement
(some standards of beauty are shared across cultures, other standards can
differ within a culture).

"To call one object beautiful necessarily means that other objects are not
beautiful, or are less beautiful, or are beautiful in a different way. As far
as I'm concerned there is nothing "harmonious" about this act. Thus, how can
beauty and harmony be intrinsically valuable or "good" when beauty necessarily
excludes harmony?"

You can have harmony without everything in the world being harmonious. By
analogy, can't we only call a system or an interaction "harmonious" if it is
something distinct from disharmony? Isn't there a difference between two
instruments playing the same pitch (or harmonious pitches, such as the same
note an octave apart) and two instruments playing completely disharmonious
pitches? (The answer is yes, and this can be scientifically demonstrated.)
Likewise, when a group of people act in concert to achieve more than the sum
of their individual efforts, is that not more harmonious than a group of
people warring with themselves?

------
pj
I think it's the hierarchies between the journalist and the consumer that
deserve lower (not low) pay. The journalists are doing all the work, they
should be paid more.

The problem with journalism is that the customer of the journalists'
publishers are not the readers of the articles, they are the advertisers that
fill the publication. It is this mindset that has pushed news from one of
providing information to the reader to one of providing entertainment.

Journalists then work for entertainment companies, not news companies -- there
is a big difference. The Economist is a news company. The evening news is
entertainment. This means news competes with every other form of entertainment
and news just doesn't doesn't stand a chance.

Why? Because the news is supposed to have a standard. Look at what happens
when standards are lost (cough, fox!). Look at how the Daily Show is more
popular than the evening news -- because it is more entertaining, because it
doesn't pretend to strive for ethics. These lies are transparent and the
consumer knows the news is not the news, but one big advertisement for
prescription drugs, politicians, and mega corps.

The journalists aren't making the decisions that are shaping this theatre, the
bosses with the big wallets are and they are controlled by the advertisers.

How many journalists have been told to modify their stories to be more
appealing to the ad market? How many embellish to win more viewers?

The downfall of journalism has less to do with changing technology and more to
do with faltering ethics and diminishing focus on the end user -- that is, the
reader or the viewer -- and more focus on the advertising they sell.

When the news industry begins to understand the product they are selling,
things will change.

For the record, the ad based revenue model is failing on the internet too. Are
we going to blame the internet for that?

------
pie
While this piece focuses on the journalists themselves, the other aspect of
the supply-and-demand perspective here is that society's requirements are
shifting as well.

It could be that there simply isn't a widespread demand for the type of
journalism whose decline we're observing. As generations pass, the older
always seems to lament the loss of "quality and integrity" in their
entertainment and news media.

~~~
mblakele
I suspect those lamentations are largely due to a combination of selective
memory and the spirit of the times. Getting back to journalism as an example,
there wasn't much investigative reporting in American journalism before the
Watergate scandal toppled Nixon's administration. It existed, but that's about
all: most American journalists weren't Tarbells, Sinlairs, or Naders.

Before Watergate made it fashionable, most investigative journalists had
strong personal motivation for their work. They would have fit right into the
last election cycle as bloggers. I suspect that's also true of Bernstein, but
under today's conditions Woodward might have chosen law or business.

After Watergate, every journalism group seemed to jump into investigative
journalism with both feet. Afterward it became apparent that this wasn't
sustainable, and investigative journalism declined again. However, there will
always be a certain number of motivated investigative journalists (or, if you
like, muckrakers). With modern technology, they can publish their own work at
a very low cost.

~~~
anamax
> Tarbells, Sinclairs, or Naders

Then there's the fact that many of these muckrakers didn't actually do good.

Take Nader. While the Corvair was made by "evil" GM, it was significantly
safer than comparable cars of the same era, especially the VW bug/beetle. The
bad publicity that Nader created out of whole cloth chased GM out of small
economical cars.

> After Watergate, every journalism group seemed to jump into investigative
> journalism with both feet.

It's not so much investigative as "change the world". It turns out that
journalists don't actually know better and are very easy to capture by folks
who have their own agenda. As a result, journalists have driven their
credibility towards that of used car salesmen.

Oh, and Watergate doesn't actually make journalists look bad. When "Deep
Throat" was revealed, we found out that it was just revenge by someone a
vindictive crank who thought that he should have been appointed head of the
FBI.

~~~
anamax
Argh - too late to edit. I meant to write that Watergate doesn't look
journalists look GOOD.

------
billybob
<blockquote>Intrinsic value involves things that are good in and of
themselves, such as beauty, truth, and harmony. Instrumental value comes from
things that facilitate action and achievement, including awareness, belonging,
and understanding. Journalism produces only instrumental value.</blockquote>

I disagree. I've seen some journalistic writing and photography that I'd say
qualifies as art.</p>

Also: journalists have been poorly paid (excluding the national talking heads)
for a lot longer than the Internet has been stepping on their turf. Terrible
pay was one reason I left journalism.</p>

Nowadays it's supply and demand, but it seems a bit like salt in the wound to
say "they deserve it."</p>

------
aristus
:D The reason journalists have low pay is the same reason you find
ridiculously beautiful and over-qualified people running coffee at TV stations
-- so many people want to work in the industry that employers have their pick.

My friend "W" is a PhD and former model. She tried for two years to get any
job at all at Univision in Miami. She gave up and got a crap job at a
newspaper in Colorado. Another friend "J" is a fiber optic technician who's
constantly bothering his cousin to get him an assistant gaffer job on local a
game show.

------
rosesignet
This falls in line with common wisdom doesn't it? Specialists do better in the
work force than generalists do...

------
KazamaSmokers
The purpose of journalism is to monitor the sources of power. The people doing
that job should NOT be low-paid.

~~~
PaulMorgan
They SHOULD be low-paid if all they do is act as a stenographer and just
repeat verbatim what is said by the anonymous sources of power.

~~~
KazamaSmokers
Yes, but that just means they aren't fulfilling their purpose.

------
robryan
I think we'd be in a lot of trouble if most traditional journalism
disappeared, so much blog information is just opinion on news generated by
traditional journalism or opinion pieces.

While in the web company area that hacker news covers this may not be the case
a lot of blogging is.

