Media layoffs spark a question: What happens to the middle-class journalist?

When I look at the steadily rising total of year-end layoffs, I see the steelworkers of my youth.

Growing up in Gary, Ind., during the '70s, I saw the impact as the local steel mill industry shrank from 30,000 jobs at its height to 3,000 positions in short order. Before long, a time-honored progression was forever disrupted, where kids who weren't bound for college, civil service or the military could still get jobs that might lead to middle class wages.

Now, I see a media industry where some of the most talented, experienced and middle-class writers are being cut loose from the operation. Much as you want to avoid hyperbole and overreaction, it feels like another turn toward the online economic model -- where mostly owners and big managers are paid decent wages, and costs are kept low by keeping a tight lid on wages for most workers.

In an information age where anyone can have a Web site or self-publish a book or put up a podcast or Webcast, what happens to the value of the skills of professional information gatherers, particularly when more corporate managers are embracing the ethic that quality may cost too much?

Exhibit A: the new surge in layoff announcements in recent days, likely spurred by ongoing pessimism about the 2009 economy and the growing realization that political advertising won't be around to cushion next year's third quarter.

These days, media Web sites can feel like a roster of penguins pushed off the ice floe. Editor and Publisher notes layoffs at Gannett newspapers nationwide will reach 2,000 people, including 52 jobs in Indianapolis and 50 jobs in Honolulu. TVNewser reports NBC-Universal is cutting 500 jobs amid cost reductions aimed at saving $500-million, with reporters Don Teague and John Larson among those cut. The Web site also reports Donny Deutsch's CNBC show is on hiatus and former CBS News producer Josh Howard has left NBC's business channel. Viacom also announced recently it will eliminate 850 jobs across the company.

Former WTSP reporter Miles O'Brien (shown at left)  is leaving CNN after that newschannel eliminated its science and technology reporting department. Cox Media is closing its newspaper chain bureau in Washington D.C. and combining its newspapers, radio and TV chains under a single organization.

And then Maureen Dowd weighed in with a breezy column about a California newspaperman who is using workers in India to cover public meetings in his town -- via online -- to cut labor costs by more than half (in the column, the editor admits his reporters may not always understand the importance of stuff happening during the meetings, but so what?).

All this is the result of our well-documented economic slowdown, the ongoing media recession and the disruption of adjusting to  digital technology. But I wonder if media outlets' response to this ever-adjusting landscape will make it tough for ground-level reporters to earn a middle-class living.

And what will happen to our news infrastructure if that becomes a reality?

*

Comments

[beltwaybandit]

Wow, do you ever not get what's happening in housing.

And it's no surprise you've never seen a retired auto worker run out of money and go homeless in the 80s. Every time a consumer buys a car they are making sure those retired auto workers have no worries. Americans have long said they don't like having to pay extra to "buy American". Translated...they don't like having to cover higher employee costs than with foreign auto makers.

And again, you try to spin facts not in evidence. It is not that I am against benefit packages. I am just against unreasonable benefit packages when they aren't justifiable.

And I damn well don't support the concept of a single taxpayer dollar being used to in any way, directly or indirectly, cover those union benefit packages.

If that were to happen taxpayers, which include 49 million uninsured people, would effectively be helping to pay for someone else's benefits.

It's shocking that you argue that would be fair.

Finally...there is no doubt that mortgage and real estate folks push people to properties with higher prices to maximize their own incomes. That kind of behavior has existed since biblical times.

Ever heard the term "caveat emptor"? It means "buyer beware."

The concept was taught to me in elementary school...that it is my responsibility to take care of my own finances and stand behind my own decisions in the "economy".

You are arguing that the buyer has limited responsibility for being dumb enough to buy something they can't afford, and that just is wrong. They have 100% responsibility for their actions.

No doubt those guilty of fraud should be prosecuted. But thathas nothing to do with the fact a buyer was stupid or over-reached on a new home.

Those guilty of stupidity or over-reaching must also pay a penalty...loss of home, change in lifestyle, etc.

If a person bought too much house and are now close to losing it...like many of the sub-primes...the option is NOT homelessness. It's renting an apartment until they rebuild their credit. It's part of the risk one takes in a free economy where big rewards are possible...things can go down in value as well. The smarter people win and the dumber ones lose. Usually.

Seriously...I am departing for the holidays and (good news for you) will not be visiting this site for awhile. I've enjoyed our discussion...while we clearly disagree, you are willing to keep engaged and that tells me a lot.

I sincerely wish you a great holiday, and best wishes in your career.

[working journalist]

Beltwaybandit, The sub-prime mortgage crisis began when there was a surplus of housing units for sale on the market. Developers, contractors, real estate agents and mortgage brokers welcomed creative financing packages that enabled deals to go forward. There was an attitude in society that housing prices had to go up, meaning no one saw any downside to doing anything it took to sell housing units.

Along with outright fraud, as was recently detailed in several Times stories including "A case study in housing collapse," Nov. 30 and "Fla. called No. 1 in mortgage fraud," on Dec. 3, there was also fraud in issuing mortgages. The Florida Attorney General's office has prosecuted several mortgage brokers who made up fraudulent financial information on mortgage loans for people who were put into houses they couldn't afford.

In those cases, they used no-doc loans that are usually used by small business owners who are making money, but who have been in business for less than two years, so they don't have the federal income tax returns to show the income they are earning. In these fraudulent no-doc mortgage loans, crooked mortgage brokers and real estate agents teamed up to put people who didn't own businesses into homes. The mortgage brokers made up phony businesses and incomes and filled out the papers. Often times, the people buying the homes were uneducated, didn't understand the paperwork and had no idea what they were buying. Some of them were elderly, in many cases they were just outright flim-flammed.

I know, you are going to say that people shouldn't sign things they don't understand. But many of these people were taken advantage of and the people who made these sub-prime loans are being prosecuted for fraud.

When I closed on my home a few decades ago (which I since sold during a divorce), I tried reading the closing papers, and my real estate agent, the mortgage people and the title company were all telling me I didn't have time to read all 60-plus pages, that they had closings scheduled every hour and no one read the paperwork, blah, blah. I finally gave up, but did force them to show me exactly where the final price, interest rate, and provision that stated there was no prepayment penalty were. I had to fight them over that and finally did so by getting up and saying I wasn't closing that day.

But when I talked to friends about it later they all said they had been through the same thing.

Of course, since all the scandals in the financial industry, I would never go through a signing without reading the papers and I would let the real estate agent know that was the case. But honestly, I would also hire an attorney for a real estate closing.

In terms of people buying houses they couldn't afford, I was being pushed to do just that in the 1990s when I bought my house. Real estate agents always asked for income information or wanted me to get pre-qualified before they would show me houses. And they never showed me anything in the price range I asked to see. I bought a house in my price range by trickery. I made an appointment with a new real estate agent for 7 a.m. on a Saturday morning. She had another client at 9:30 a.m., so she didn't have time to get any financial info. She asked what we wanted to pay, and surprise, surprise, she had a slew of houses in our price range. We looked at several and made an offer on one. After the buyer accepted she set us up with a mortgage broker and found out how much we earned and blurted out, "I never would have showed you that house if I knew what you were earning, you could have paid a lot more!" I said, "Yeah, we could have if we wanted to stretch our budget farther, but we didn't."

But every other real estate agent had showed us much more expensive houses, telling us we could afford it, everybody else with our income was buying in that range, if they could do it we could too, blah, blah.

Many people are just not able to stand up to that kind of pressure, and many of the people trapped in the sub-prime mortgage mess weren't intelligent enough to know what they were getting into.

Again, the real estate agents who knew what those people were earning, and the mortgage brokers who fudged and lied to make loans should be prosecuted. But so should the banks that approved those loans without calling to verify information on loan applications.

But, I digress. What I'm saying is a surplus of houses and a deficit of qualified buyers, plus a desire to keep house prices going up and a willingness for people in the financial services industry to falsify loan applications and fail to verify such information was how the sub-prime mortgage mess was born.

It just went from bad to worse from there. A recent report found that Moody's originally refused to give bundles of sub-prime mortgages investment grade rating and after pressure was applied went ahead and did so. There is plenty of blame to spread around for the financial crisis.

Benefits are a problem. No other country has employers furnishing health care and we shouldn't do it in this country either. As far as retirement is concerned, that is a big mess. American workers need to find some way to get their incomes up and their expenses down so that they can earn enough to not only live on while they are working, but also to pay their bills when they are in their 70s and 80s and are too old to work.

I can't tell you how sad it is to see a man or woman in his or her 80s run out of money and resort to sleeping on bus stop benches, going without food and water during the day in Florida's hot sun. But as a journalist, I have seen my share of elderly people go homeless.

I know you aren't in favor of benefit packages, but I've never seen a retired auto worker run out of money and go homeless in their 80s.

[beltwaybandit]

Working Journalist:

If it makes you feel better, let's use the term "cost" in lieu of paid on the auto workers. Either way, those workers receive the cash and benefit packages from their employers.

The fact is, it "costs" auto companies in Detroite $72 per hour in wages, benefits, payroll burdem, etc. versus $44 per hour "cost" to foreign car makers with U.S. operations.

Any way you care to mince words, the fact is the workers at the Detroit 3 cost more than their peers at U.S. operations of foreign auto makers, and clearly they cost too much for the car makers to afford.

And Toyota is not going to have those retiree benefit legacy costs the Detroit guys do because they did not sign up to pay them. Toyota workers are non-union. They are paid on average at or above the levels of autoworkers in the Detroit companies. That is roughly $30 per hour for Toyota compared to 28-30 per hour for Detroit workers. Benefits are where the problem is. That's why Detroit is saddled with costs of $72/hour per employee vs. $44/hour for the foreign guys with U.S. operations.

The housing crisis is more complex than I am making it out to be? Specify exactly how. You failed to do so.

You did note, correctly, that when housing becomes an issue and the economy tanks, people lose their jobs and their investments go down and the economy contracts.

No news there. That has always been the case.

You hit on an important point. People have to come to grips with the fact that things do not always go up.

Just because you've averag 10-20% annual returns on your retirmenet portfolio does not mean you are entitled to it.

Just because the past seven years have seen housing prices skyrocket doesn't mean when they go down you deserve a break from the government.

Those who bought a home at the high point of the housing market or who did not qualify for the $600,000 home buy got a one year interest only mortgage that re-set its rates after they rose are facing the reality that they are in trouble. That is as it should be.

It is tough. But it reality.

I am glad you believe that journalists have the skill sets to do other jobs well. I suspect journalists will need to apply those skills.

[working journalist]

Beltwaybandit, you are in error on what U.S. autoworkers are paid. They are not "paid" $72 an hour. The $72 an hour figure includes pay to retired auto workers, plus the cost of the retirees' health insurance, not money given in paychecks to working auto industry employees. The $72 per hour figure is all labor-related costs the Big Three pay. Because Toyota, etc., don't have a long history in this country, they don't have those retiree-related expenses included in their labor costs.

I agree with the thing about people not having a right to big benefit packages, especially retirees. Look at what having retirees with pension plans and health insurance have done to Florida for example. Average retirees with money to spend fueled the economy here for years by retiring to Florida, buying houses here and bringing their incomes from pension plans to the state. That allowed Florida to fuel its economy with growth instead of something more stable. Now that the growth has stopped, we are paying the price with huge state budget deficits.

The housing crisis is far more complex than you are making it out to be.

And although people might not have a right to a job, an income or a benefit package, when enough people don't have those things it causes a cycle of contractions in our nation's economy to compensate.

Then of course, there is also the conundrum of how people keep a roof over their heads and food on the table if they don't have an income. Of course, some people don't give a flip about other people suffering.

As far as newspaper advertising is concerned, my comments were not meant to be an exhaustive discussion of the advertising revenue situation over the past decades.

Right now, advertising revenue is down more than circulation is. Although people might be willing to read online, that is only an option if newspapers have enough revenue to keep publishing an online product.

However, so far newspapers haven't found a way to generate enough revenue online to pay their costs. If that continues to be the case and newspapers fold, then the option to read news online of the caliber now available will disappear.

When it comes to journalism as a living, most of us are capable of doing other things. I've had other careers and most of them them paid a lot better and required much less effort. I simply wanted to do what I love to do, which is write. Most people never get to have a job that makes them love going to work every day. But the kind of broad skills required to be a journalist, along with the ability to produce under pressure-cooker deadlines on a daily basis, make doing other jobs well easy. So in terms of career choices, it's no big deal. Journalists simply enjoy what we do and are committed to the historic watchdog role of journalism in a Democracy.

[beltwaybandit]

Working Journalist:

Since you decided to elevate this discussion we're having with your last graph, let's get to it, shall we?

You note that audience levels have not fallen as much as ad dollars. There is a good reason for that. The two are not equal and have no one-to-one correlation as you argue. One ad dollar does not equal one person. A groupofpeople that no longer reads a newspaper can, and does, cause ad revenue to go down in increments. If you understood the newspaper business (or any ad supported media business) you would have known that.

The fact is the newspaper audience has been declining on a consistent basis for at least 10 years. That information was hidden for many years because of falsified circulation numbers by newspapers (see Dallas Morning News and many other major daily papers). Once those numbers were identified and corrected, it became clear the erosion of audience was significant. And of course, why should readers trust a newspaper to tell the truth that lies about its own circulation?

Revenue started to decline prior to the economic collapse as well. Particularly in ther large metro papers. When the economy started to fall in 2006 things only accelerated.

Your comment about "news journalists writing news stories are objective" is not accurate.

News journalists writing news stories are SUPPOSED to be objective. But as we often see, that is not always true (as evidenced by errors of fact admitted by and printed in the papers and errors of fact or misleading writing that goes uncorrected).

Columnists and editorial page writers give opinion, and that is in fact the way it is. I know the difference. Not sure now that you do.

And you demonstrate my case...too many journlists do a poor job of writing in ways that attract an audience. Your argument is, and I quote "no matter how "creative" a journalist might be, you can't get someone who isn't interested in current events to read the newspaper." You are justifying the paper's poor performance by blaming the readers who fail to read the paper. You are off base on that by ten miles, and if you represent the current thought level of "working class journalists" out there, no wonder newspapers are where they are. It never occurs to you to look in the mirror to make sure you aren't part of the problem.

On the automakers issue...the $72/hour paid to U.S. autoworkers versus the $44 paid to the American autoworkers in this country working for Toyota, BMW, etc. is a direct comparison of the same expenses: wages, payroll taxes, benefits, etc. These numbers were provided by the UAW in their earlier testimony before congress. The main difference is the benefit packages paid to U.S. auto company workers via union contract.

Bottom line: any way you slice it...U.S. autoworkers for the Detroit 3 are grossly overpaid in cash and benefits compared to other American workers. They have contributed to, but not been the only cause of, the current plight of the Detroit 3. And like newspapers, the Detroit 3 have had long-term problems in their businesses that pre-date the current economy. Management has blame, and so do the employees.

I do not object to people getting a decent wage and benefits. I never argued otherwise...that is just a strawman argument you developed.

I do object to American consumers who want to buy Detroit cars having to pay $2,000 more than a foreign car would cost just to pay some retired auto workers' family benefit plan. And, I object to any argument that says anyone has a RIGHT to huge benefit packages. They do not. Whether they are management or worker class.

When times are good, people can get paid what their company will pay them. But when times are bad, that needs to go away and no one is entitled to anything. I particularly disagree with the ontion that American taxpayers, among whom reside nearly 49 million without health insurance, possibly havin gtheir tax dollars going to an industry where union auto workers have not stepped up and explicitly promised that not a dime would go to funding their benefits program. The union has said they will make some concessions, but they have not promised to not ask that tax dollars support their benefits.

As for the current economic mess, the cause has been clear for some time:

* push by the government in the late 90s for increased home ownership by people who previously did not qualify for mortgages. Home ownership went up around 10 percentage points in the interim, creating a new class of mortgages called "sub-prime". This subsequently created a situation, even before the economy went down hill, where sub-prime mortgages were getting delinquent and write offs were occurring.

* In 2004, congress relaxed oversight on the financial industry. This allowed those folks to do all kinds of exotic things including taking on debt at a ratio of 40-1...$40 of debt for every $1 of equity.

Everything bad that happened after that resulted from these two spots in recent history. Economists agree with it and government officials agree with it. Politicians of course do not, because it was the Democrats who started the housing/sub-prime mess with their policies, and it was the Republicans who caused the lifting of oversight in 2004.

Wall Street execs who have failing companies need to give their bonuses back...they never earned them because their profits were not real over the last several years.

And those who were not bright enough to know how much house they can afford but went ahead and entered into a mortage over their heads deserve what they get as well. Ignorance is no defense in the eyes of the law, and in terms of common sense.

As for you, Working Journalist...based on what I've read in your last post, I strongly suggest you take a bit of your own advice:

1. Read some economic text books
2. Read some history text books
3. Read some social studies text books
4. Read as many magazines as you care to read

And by all means...get some additional schooling in your profession. It seems you were absent at J-school on the days they explained that a good journalist keeps their eyes and ears open and understands the realities of the world they work in.

[David]

Working journalist,

While I agree with the majority of your position, I disagree on this statement:

"And advertising revenue is down because people have lost living wage jobs and don't have as much money to spend on retail things."

Classified advertising with newspapers has been declining for years, but not for the reasons you outline. Rather, people have found other avenues to advertise, which include but are not limited to Craigslist, eBay, Auto Trader, and other sources. During the 1980's, I bought and sold A LOT of cars. I was not a dealer, but rather an enterprising high school/college student. At one point (around 1980), the St. Pete Times classifieds were the only way to go. You could place an ad on Friday, and have the car sold by Saturday, because it was THE ONLY PLACE TO FIND CARS FOR SALE. But then the Auto Trader (a Clearwater-based company) came into being, offering a better alternative: more words, a longer term (4 weeks vs. 10 days) and a picture of your car.

Instantly, hundreds of individuals stopped advertising in the Times classified because that no longer represented the best route to market. eBay and Craigslist followed in the 90's, and were successful because they improved on the route to market.

I view newspapers through the same evolutionary lenses that I view the telegraph and analog TV. They had their moment in the sun, but market forces are shaping the way news is delivered to the masses. Google's rise impacted Microsoft's -- yes, the same company that spawned the world's richest man -- go-to-market strategy. It's an evolutionary market process that simply cannot be ignored.

My concern lies with the companies that do not recognize the business transformations that are taking place, and continue in a downward spiral. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing, but expecting different results. I'm afraid that is the mindset of far too many companies who do not know how to transform themselves to be competitive in the 21st century.

I do agree that the media has performed an admirable "watchdog" service. God knows someone needed to mock the Clearwater City Commission on the ridiculous roundabout they built on Clearwater Beach, and fortunately, the Times did just that. However, for a lot of us -- and Joe Hillman and I are of a similar mindset on this point -- the "delivery" of our news is not dependent on a physical product, i.e. the paper itself. I would be perfectly content for the Times to transform themselves into an electronic news portal for the greater Tampa Bay area and beyond. The Internet allows for content not possible in newspapers due to cost constraints (interactive polls, extensive photographs, more detailed reporting, etc).

The larger question is, can they transform their business and still be profitable?

[working journalist]

Beltwaybandit, Newspaper readership has not declined nearly as much as advertising revenue has. And advertising revenue is down because people have lost living wage jobs and don't have as much money to spend on retail things.

Journalists writing news stories are objective. In columns and editorials they give opinion. That's the way it is and opinion columns are supposed to take a stand. When you read online, you miss the visual clues that reading a newspaper gives and sometimes don't understand that you are reading an opinion piece rather than a straight news story.

Our economy is in a bad recession, probably headed for depression. Newspapers are not performing badly, they haven't been the cash cows that Wall Street and stock investors want, but there are no high-performing cash cows in an economy that is crashing.

Journalists work hard on deadline to produce news stories that inform and get all the facts that citizens need into a concise, interesting article. It is hard work and most people couldn't do it. But what they are writing about is current events, or the first draft of history. And many people don't give a flip about history or current events. So no matter how "creative" a journalist might be, you can't get someone who isn't interested in current events to read the newspaper.

But again, the "poor performance" of newspapers is a lack of advertising revenue because businesses in America lack customers and have less and less money to spend on advertising.

As far as auto workers are concerned, the $72 an hour figure includes the pension costs for retired workers, along with their health insurance costs and costs to pay laid off workers. When those costs are factored out, the Big Three automakers are paying their current workers only slightly more than the foreign automakers pay. And remember, $44 an hour is not wages, it is wages, plus unemployment compensation insurance premiums, plus workers compensation premiums, plus federal taxes, social security taxes and medicare taxes, along with health insurance premiums and pension contributions and the cost of vacation, holiday and sick days.

Maybe you object to people being covered by benefit plans, rather than just getting minimum wage, without health insurance, vacation days and sick pay. But most people who have to work for a living are pro-labor benefits, after all, they are labor, not management.

And please, don't blame workers for this. Wall Street, banks and the financial industry were to blame for most of this financial crisis. There we are talking about workers earning $200,000 a year and up into the millions. So stop the blame game on journalists and other middle class workers and please don't tell me that Americans who labor for a living don't deserve a living wage while upper management take home million-dollar salary packages.

And please, go read (at least) the following: 1 economics textbook, 1 history textbook and 1 social studies textbook, 1 financial news magazine and 1 general news magazine.

[beltwaybandit]

Working Journalist:

You need to be clear that I was not referring to you when I stated that it felt like there was class warfare underway in this discussion. I was referring to the entire tone of the thread.

You can see that if you also link the two questions I ask just prior to making the class warfare comment.

There is, on this thread, a strong feeling of sorrow, concern, outrage, etc. over the loss of middle class journalist jobs. Understandable and agreed.

I wonder if there would be simlar concern if members of management got terminated instead of the working journalists? I doubt it.

I have certainly argued that newspaper management deserved what it gets due to their poor performance over the years. I believe that.

I also believe that the "middle class journalists" also deserve a share of blame. Because the data is clear...via declining audience over a period of years and not just during tough economic times...that the audience appetite for the work of these journalists is waning. If the journalists were more creative, more objective, more accurate, better writers, etc. there no doubt would be a higher demand for their work.

To exempt one class of worker versus another is a biased argument. I'm nbot sure you were making that case, but it seems as though others are.

I laugh out loud when I read that Senator Chris Dodd and other members of congress are on TV this past weekend arguing that if the auto makers want taxpayer dollars to spend, the senior management must resign because they oversaw these companies as they "got into this mess".

Really? By that logic, all Senators including Dodd as well as congressmen should resign because their performance is ar more pathetic than that of the automakers.

The UAW President should also go because he and his group have been partly responsible for driving labor costs in the American automakers to levels that are both ridiculous (95% pay for workers who don't work when plants close and lifetime health benefits paid by the company) and non-competitive ($72 per hour for American companies vs. $44/hour for their foreign counterparts in American plants).

My point is everyone has to realize all members of the newspaper industry are in this together. All of them are to blame for its poor performance. And all jobs lost, regardless of management or worker status, should be regretted.

[working journalist]

Beltwaybandit, I got the range of "twice to six times the federal poverty guidelines" from St. Petersburg Times business columnist Robert Trigaux, titled "Five ways to tell if you're middle class," on Nov. 20. I then got the federal poverty guidelines from the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services and did the math. You are right about costs varying across the country, which is taken into consideration by the range of "twice to six times the federal poverty guidelines."

As far as newspaper journalists salaries, the only newspaper journalist I knew of in the Tampa Bay area who was making six figures was Tom French at the Times, before he took the last buyout offer and left. But he was a Pulitzer Prize winner.

I never heard of any of the other journalists there earning that much. But you know, a six figure income starts at $100,000. And as I said, Tom French was the only journalist at the Times that I know of who was earning that much. And he had several kids, so his earnings were probably still very middle class.

The vast majority of the journalists who have taken buyouts, or otherwise lost their jobs at the Times and Tampa Tribune were earning less than $100,000, as are the vast majority of journalists still working at those places. Executives at the paper are earning more, but they aren't the ones losing their jobs for the most part.

To put journalist's pay in perspective, many of the smaller newspapers in Florida have traditionally lost reporters to teaching K-12 because it paid better. That's why so many reporters try to work for the large Florida newspapers, such as the St. Petersburg Times, Miami Herald and Tampa Tribune, because those papers generally pay either the same or slightly more than school teachers earn.

Actually, the Times has lost a number of reporters to teaching or other education-related jobs. And that was before the buyouts and layoffs.

So you aren't detecting any class warfare here. There isn't any class warfare when most newspaper reporters and columnists at the St. Petersburg Times and Tampa Tribune are earning under $100,000 a year. In fact, many of them are earning what teachers earn, but they don't have summer off and they don't have a teacher's pension.

You have introduced a fallacy here when you say that reporters are higher compensated than middle class. I know some of the big execs at the Times earn big bucks, but they aren't getting laid off, they are pink-slipping the lower paid folks, or they offered them buyouts. I don't know what TV anchors earn, but the vast majority of the newspaper employees who lost their jobs recently earned under $100,000 a year and were very much middle class.

What drives many journalists, and keeps them in the business despite low salaries, is that they love what they do. But beginning journalists in Florida start at pays that range from $20,000 (or less) to $30,000 (or rarely as high as $35,000). Those jobs require a college degree and several years experience writing for at least the college newspaper, which was usually unpaid. Then journalists work their way up, gaining years of experience and usually relocating for a few thousand more all the time trying to get in with a larger newspaper that can pay around $45,000, which the Times does, or did.

So if that all sounds like class warfare to you, I say it sounds like people trying to earn enough to pay their bills to me. There are things a student can major in that have starting salaries of $45,000 and someone with a masters in business usually starts off with a six figure income, earning more their first year on a job than most journalists will earn a year if they work until they are 65.

[another working journalist]

Amen to what Working Journalist said. If I had wanted to make high school dropout money, I wouldn't have wasted time studying in high school. I knew I wouldn't get rich in this field, but I expected to be able to afford decent health care for my kids and to be able to send them to a decent state college.

No one sees any negatives with "citizen journalists" but trained journalists who know and observe the law and make ethical decisions are much more valuable to maintaining democracy, especially at the local level. Would any of you want to be operated on by a "citizen surgeon" or given legal advice by a "citizen lawyer" or drive over bridges designed by "citizen engineers?"

If wages for jounalists continue to shrink - not that they were much to write home about to begin with, especially at smaller papers - then the only people doing those jobs will be those with no education or training.

[beltwaybandit]

Where do you get those definitions?

According to the federal government, there are no established monetary definitions to "middle class".

Congressional research Service, in anunofficial study, pegged "middle class" income as $21,000 to $96,000 annually.

However, they pointed out that thos enumbers are impacted by geographical location. It requires much more to live in a Tier 1 city like New York, Chicago, LA or DC than in a tier 2 city like Miami or Dallas, or a tier 3 city like Tampa or Tucson.

As for journalists' compensation...it is actually quite true that newspaper reporters do not normally make six figure salaries. In fact, TV reporters in a market like Tampa usually do not make six figures and sometimes start as low as 40K.

Most people get caught up because of what they read about the true stars of newspapers making 100K+ salaries and TV local news anchors signing fat contracts for hundreds of thousands per year. They naturally believe all news reporters make that kind of money.

That said, does it make a difference if someone making six figures get fired as opposed to someone in "middle class"?

By that, I mean...should we be less concerned if middle class folks lose their jobs versus wealthier folks?

Or, should we be more concerned if middle class folks lose their jobs as opposed to higher compensated reporters and anchors?

I detect a little class warfare in this discussion.

[working journalist]

Joe, most journalists don't earn $70,000 to begin with. As far as copy editors in India are concerned, they aren't familiar with America, or the community the news is coming from that they edit. I work for a news outlet that has begun replacing overseas reporters with Americans because of quality/accuracy issues. We never were able to have them edit stories, because they made to many mistakes and editing stories from the overseas writers is exhausting because they write such sloppy copy.

There are other issues with outsourcing as well. When that income leaves this country, it isn't spent here on restaurant meals, clothing at the mall retail stores, groceries, gas at the corner station, deposited in the local bank, etc. That money goes out of an American community and into a community in another country where it bolsters their economy.

We have lost more than 1 million American jobs this year. Restaurants are closing their doors around the nation and laying off more workers because they have no customers. Car dealers are closing their doors, not really because there isn't enough money from bank loans to finance car sales, but because not enough people have jobs and can afford to take out a loan to buy a car and then make the monthly payments.

The definition of middle class income is someone who makes from twice to six times the federal poverty guidelines.

For a single person, the federal poverty line is $10,400, so to be middle class a single person needs an income of from $20,800 to $62,400.

For a family of two, the federal poverty line is $14,000, so to be middle class a family of two needs an income of from $28,000 to $84,000.

For a family of three, the federal poverty line is $17,600, so to be middle class a family of three needs an income of from $35,200 to $105,600

And for a family of four, the federal poverty line is $21,200, so to be middle class a family of four needs an income of from $42,400 to $127,200.

According to salarywizard, reporters in St. Petersburg earn base pay from $27,000 to $32,000 for someone with 0 to 1 year experience, $30,000 to $40,000 for someone with 1 to 4 years experience and from $42,000 to $53,000 for the most experienced reporters. That might be why the Times shed so many of its most experienced reporters recently.

Editors who supervise and assign stories to reporters earn slightly more than similarly experienced reporters do, but copy editors generally earn less than that or about the same.

Columnists earn a little more, but the newspaper columnists at the St. Petersburg Times don't earn the kind of money that columnists at the Chicago Sun Times or the New York Times do. And nobody in the newspaper industry earns what a network television news anchors like Katie Couric does. Of course, that's true for the local television reporters and anchors too, who generally are earning about what the newspaper journalists are, or slightly less.

So please don't think that newspaper journalists are a bunch of wealthy people. They are generally a college educated group who work darn hard for their money. And like most college grads, they would like to continue earning what other college grads do instead of sinking down to the kind of wages that a high school drop out makes, which is about minimum wage or slightly more.

In general, I think that is about all that most Americans want. Just to earn a living wage.

So let's not attack each other and be jealous because someone who works hard wants to be able to meet their obligations and keep a roof over their head.

America is better off when it has a middle class. And it is even better off when that middle class is large. The more the merrier.

[journalist]

oops, talk about sloppy copy, I accidentally hit the post button too early, sorry.

[joe hillman]

sorry eric, i thought you wrote colette's post. my apologies.

[joe hillman]

eric:

here's where you are traveling west down the road and i am traveling east.

newspapers in print are dying. similar news will always be available online in some form whether from a site like tampabay.com, a tv station (wfla/wtsp et al) website, or even a radio station site (some stations actually are producing copy on their websites) or even the mom and pop weekly papers which also have websites (such as the times' owned tbnweekly.com, which i'm sure you are familar with).

it seems you are suggesting that unless a reporter is making $X0k a year, the work will be sloppy or not around? i don't believe that for a second. in fact, that's quite a shallow point of view. maybe you aren't aware of thousands of people who love their jobs (at a variety of crafts) and do solid work for sometimes as little as $30k a year?

there will always be good reporters filing copy in some form from some source. shoot, i know bloggers out there who do solid work who basically do it for free. why? they have a passion for what they do.

it seems as though you are irritated that someone, a reader, a consumer, actually can choose from multiple sources of information in the 21st century as opposed to only a handful as recently as 15 years ago.

[Colette]

Joe, you wrote:

"as i posted a week or so ago in another thread, i haven't subscribed to a paper in years (not bragging) but i surf news sites daily. i find myself reading more info from more sources than i ever had before. as a reault, i believe i'm more informed.

"i'm not sure that's a bad thing."

It's not. But who do you think is producing those news sites -- such as this one? For the most part, newspapers, staffed by print reporters. Crossing your fingers and hoping the news "will be there, somewhere, somehow" (produced by Internet elves, I guess) is a risky assumption.

[joe hillman]

>>>And again, i'm not saying news won't be around. But what quality of news will we have?<<<

people who care about their craft produce good work no matter the salary.

just because someone is a teacher in florida getting paid much less than a teacher in georgia make him/her a lesser professional? of course not.

same with newspapers. you suggest unless someone is making $70k+ they will be lazy and produce sloppy copy.

i don't believe that for a second.

[joe hillman]

eric:

i do not share in your doomsday theory. there will always be political watchdogs if for no other reason political opponents will feed others information in order to discredit their rivals.

you act like the daily newspapers are the lone souce of information. i also seem to recall hearing reports of utility fees hikes on radio news programs as well.

or did i just dream that up one night?

[joe hillman]

eric:

live in st. pete and came from a town that was a two-newspaper market until i was in college in the 80s. the paper that folded really stunk out loud and i know few if anyone that misses it, except of course those that worked there (a good friend included).

that newspaper was horrible. it folded. the better one survived. free market.

i have strong connections to a city that was devestated by the collaspe of the steel industry. it has since rebounded.

the loss of jobs nearly killed the town. but its citizens and civic leaders rallied and it is a nice town again. i'm not trivializing in any what happened to cities like gary. people in (some) other cities were (for whatever reason) able to pick up the pieces and move on.

i'm not pointing fingers. please don't misunderstand.

[Lin Young]

Joe, all of those web news sites you surf are relying on news stories from somewhere, although some of it is from wire service reporters at the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, German Press Agency (DPA) and others, much of it comes from newspapers around the nation and world. Many of those newspaper stories are picked up by AP, and run without the byline of the original newspaper reporter who wrote the story because AP has agreements with newspapers. But check more carefully the next time you read news and Google the initials you find in brackets, to see which news agency the story came from, or look at the end of the story to see where it came from. I think you will be surprised to see that all your "free" internet news is being paid for by a news organization somewhere that is probably struggling to survive.

And as for all that local news that you don't care about. If you had civics in high school, you would understand that it's your tax money being spent by your local governments and you might want to read the local newspaper to see how it's being spent. Also, the local newspaper is where you will get a heads up that your electric company wants to jack up rates, in case you want to object and see if you can get your state lawmakers to intervene to keep that increase down or avoid it. Oh, by the way, the local newspaper is also where you will learn what is going on during the state legislature as well and how they are spending your tax dollars. The local newspaper is also the one that will send out reporters to investigate and find out if there is industrial pollution in your neighborhood, etc., etc.

And don't count on the news always being out there. Most people have full-time jobs and don't have the time to ferret out the news.

Didn't you appreciate the Washington Post uncovering the fact that the VA hospital in Washington was in substandard condition, wasn't giving Iraq war veterans the proper care and was wasting our taxpayer dollars?

That's only a small listing of what the newspapers do on a daily basis. Don't be naive enough to believe that we can't lose it all. And once it's gone, don't believe it will ever be easy to get it back.

[Eric Deggans]

And again, i'm not saying news won't be around. But what quality of news will we have? And how will it serve the nation? And if we don't dissect these questions now, how will we take action if we eventually decide that what's happening isn't bearable?

[Eric Deggans]

Joe, if you live in the TampaBay area, i think you have been spoiled by living in a city where there are, frankly, an amazing numbers of newspapers still in operation.

Ask people who live in Indianapolis what it is like to have one major newspaper -- a Gannett paper which has undergone several staff reductiobns -- servicing a metropolitan area of close to 2-million people.

To use Gary Indiana as an example, when the steel industry collasped, the city almost died. A raging crack epidemic broke out and joblessness was so bad that there were two-year waiting lists to get work at McDonalds.

So a flood of young people left town, because they had no future. And when they left, they took the town's future with them.

Did Gary fall into Lake michigan? No. But it did become the murder capitol of the U.S., per capita, over three separate years in the 1990s. So the pain and devastation was widespread.

[joe hillman]

>>>I think the general public doesn't realize how much it depends on newspaper-style news gathering for all the free niformation it is now consuming. And I also think it is dangerous to assume that something will arise to take its place if worsening economic conditions start erasing newspapers... <<<

valid point but in the past 40-50 years (you and i, i believe, are the same age) haven't only a fraction of newspapers survived from the world war II years? and the papers that have survived are mere leaflets compared to what they were?

i'm not sure the republic is crumbling as a result.

as i posted a week or so ago in another thread, i haven't subscribed to a paper in years (not bragging) but i surf news sites daily. i find myself reading more info from more sources than i ever had before. as a reault, i believe i'm more informed.

i'm not sure that's a bad thing.

the evaporating newspaper era isn't new, just happening more rapidly than before.

besides, the weekly papers are still around for those who crave micro-neighborhood news that the dailies rarely covered.

to your original post, the steel workers you speak of, a lot of their children moved on did they not?

maybe it's just me, but those who fret and wring their hands over the good ole' days usually trap themselves and watch the world pass them by.

news will always be out there. maybe not in print, but it will be there. somewhere, somehow.

[Lin Young]

Billy, whoa, this health insurance thing seems to have taken on a life of its own.

As I made clear initially, I rarely use Western medicine, so I rarely used health insurance even during the decades when I had it. Most of my health insurance premium dollars, plus those of my - or my ex-husband's - employer went to subsidize health care for people who frequently see doctors. Unhealthy people will do anything to keep health insurance, including changing jobs solely to get it, and those sick people are subsidized by healthy people like me, until we abandon the system. But if you had been reading the news section of this newspaper, or watching TV news, you would know the U.S. has officially been in recession since December 2007, that the recession is worsening and there are few job openings in any field.

If I were unhealthy, I probably wouldn’t have taken the job I have now. I would have changed occupations to get health insurance. But since I’m healthy, my only real concern is the catastrophic. However, I’m not very concerned because it’s unlikely I will develop a catastrophic illness, such as cancer or heart disease. So I’m not interested in a high deductible catastrophic policy. Remember, unhealthy people will do anything to stay insured, while healthy people drop insurance if costs soar, since they have little expectation of getting anything for the money. Besides, a high deductible policy requires money to pay the deductible.

As for your assertion that there are plenty of low cost health insurance plans, if you investigated you would find the reputable companies are advertising health insurance premiums that begin at a low rate for people in their early 20s. If you aren’t, rates climb quickly. Average rates for individual policies vary from about $5,000 to $8,000 per year, while family policies range from about $8,000 to $12,000.

Even for someone with a middle class income, that’s too much for one budget item, especially for a healthy person unlikely to use the health insurance.

And as for beltwaybandits suggestion that hospital emergency rooms take anyone, that’s true, but 1) they don’t treat cancer at emergency rooms, and 2) anyone who visits an emergency room will get a bill, and 2a) if they are poor enough they might not have to pay, but if they are middle class they will.

But there are larger issues here.

Only about 54 percent of all Americans work for a company offering health insurance to begin with. About 49 million Americans don’t have health insurance and that number climbs as more people lose jobs. And that’s not good news for people who still have health insurance because as fewer people pay health insurance premiums, rates have to rise for the remaining people with insurance. And while we are the only industrialized nation whose citizens lack affordable access to health care, which makes us look more like a third world nation, we still spend more money per capita on health care than any other nation on earth.

Also, our middle class is shrinking, which means fewer people are able to help shoulder the general shared costs of living in this society. If journalists drop out of the middle class, then news outlets might have a problem finding talented people to report and write the news. That affects society in broad ways, because society relies on journalists not only to let them know what is going on in the world, nation, state and local communities, but also to serve as a watchdog on government, investigating what is going on and protecting taxpayer dollars from being wasted.

Eric poses a very big question about what will happen to the news infrastructure - gathering and reporting the news - if journalists become the latest casualty of the shrinking middle class.

As Eric states, while he wants to avoid “hyperbole and overreaction, it feels like another turn toward the online economic model -- where mostly owners and big managers are paid decent wages, and costs are kept low by keeping a tight lid on wages for most workers.”

That is the definition of two Americas, some people earning a lot of money while others can barely survive. My initial premise was that the problem of America’s shrinking middle class was bound to extend to journalists, because they are just as endangered as the rest of the middle class.

If America loses its middle class, it really will look like a third world nation in every way. It goes beyond losing health insurance or losing watchdog journalism to an issue of what kind of people are we, what kind of people are we willing to become.

[Ken J]

Eric,

You do realize the supreme arrogance of newspaper publishers, some of whom are still shocked that subscription sales are falling when the product is free on the Internet.

That's the equivalent of the automakers giving out free limo rides to everyone and then wondering why car sales are down.

Newspapers are welcome to demand much more from their staff, use qualified part-time labor (like myself), and go Internet-only Monday through Saturday, which would save them a fortune in overhead and get throngs of people buying the Sunday paper again.

Newspapers don't need an intervention. And I to like the copy editors in India idea.

[Eric Deggans]

I actually haven't said the government should bail out media or newspapers.

I have suggested the public might want to view helping newspapers through this crisis as a way of helping the community.

I have also suggested that newspapers may eventually be supported by charitable foundations if the economic model changes enough.

So my point is simply that accepting the change in media as inevitable or appropriate because the free market is causing it, isn't necessarily valid.

I think the general public doesn't realize how much it depends on newspaper-style news gathering for all the free niformation it is now consuming. And I also think it is dangerous to assume that something will arise to take its place if worsening economic conditions start erasing newspapers...

[joe hillman]

so eric, what august group of learned individuals gets to decide what's good for the proletariat? which group of self-imposed superior peoples gets to order the littles what they must read?

and why stop there? why not force people to also watch only sanctioned tv stations and cable outlets?

i'm assuming you are suggesting -- as you have before -- that papers should get a federal bailout of some sort?

then who gets to decide which papers to prop up?

i trust you realize this is equally if not more dangerous newspapers cutting staff.

[dreaming]

im not sure why lin young says she cant afford health insurance if her income is 'solidly middle class.'

she should go to www.ehealthinsurance.com and look for coverage. it's quite affordable, though maybe not the cadillac coverage of a group plan.

as for the media losing its middle class, management and ownership of newspapers have long exploited their writing and editing talent through the use of such devices as 'part-time' or '32-hour jobs' wherein the company doesnt have to pay for health insurance.

unfortunately, many journos were and are all too willing to be exploited like this for the sake of a job.

the journo bizniz is no more ethical than many other sleazy industries that exploit workers for low wages and few to no benefits.

so, eric, there is nothing being 'lost' these days because the business has always been an abuser of its human resources. from 'paperboys' on up.

[Eric Deggans]

But we also know, thanks to the current recession, that what free markets decide isn't always what's best for the country. We know there are times when citiznes and the government must step in to prevent a calamuity caused by the free markets to preserve a valuable system.

Simply chalking this shift up to market forces and turning a blind eye to its negatives is just as bad as the denial which made the problem worse in the first place....

[joe hillman]

>>>Besides, right now if someone who is uninsured goes to an emergency room in this country for care, law says they must be treated and Medicare covers the cost. Even the poor people in the country right this minute have health care accessible to them.

It would seem that "middle class" journalists may be arguing that they somehow have a right to employment. Kind of like the United Auot Workers often argue.<<<

that's pretty much what i get out of all the whining about "newspapers are dying, wah!"

the free market is speaking. if newspapers pumped out what people wanted...

there are only two guarentees in life and we all know what those are.

[gal pal]

My concern is the checks and balances the media supplies.
All the investigative reporting that has saved people money, gotten money back for them, or stopped companies from ripping us off.
Will the investigation have the same clout with the resources the newspaper used to supply?

[Billy]

Lin Young, while I sympathize with your situation, there is a simple solution. If your job doesn't offer health insurance, find a job that does. It's not unreasonable to say the burden is on you, and accepting a job without health benefits is a choice you made.

Also, there are PLENTY of low cost health insurance options out there. Sure they may have a high deductable, but catostrophic coverage is there, and would certainly avoid the cancer situation you mentioned.

[Lin Young]

Yo, beltwaybandit. I'm not angry over the lack of affordable health care. But whenever women make sensible arguments about economic situations they are accused of being angry, or bitchy or whatever (which is what happened to Hillary Clinton). Our nation has always had people who were neither rich nor poor, the great middle class, although they weren't always called that. I come from a long line of farmers and school teachers on my maternal side, stretching back to the mid-1700s. My ancestors were not wealthy, but they mostly weren't poor either. They could afford to do what they needed to do in this world. And when a nation has a large segment of citizens who can't afford to do the things they need to do, that nation is in trouble.

For the past year, our nation has been in a deepening recession. Government entities are struggling to balance budgets and many might be forced to cut police and fire protection if things don't improve. We need middle class taxpayers to help fund government functions.

Our infrastructure is crumbling, things such as roads, bridges, water and sewer systems need repairs. If we are a nation of rich and poor, then the burden of repairing bridges and roads will fall on the rich alone. Without roads and bridges, there is no way to get around this country, unless you want to walk everywhere and walk without a smooth road or sidewalk to go on.

As for water and sewer systems, without them, we have disease problems.

If you don't think this nation needs a middle class, look at Zimbabwe, which has eroded its middle class and is now a nation of the very poor or the very rich. That nation can't afford to treat its water supply, so the residents of even the nation's capital don't have running water most of the time. Cholera, which is highly contagious and spread by contaminated water, is rampant in Zimbabwe. It has spread to nine of that nation's 10 provinces and without a middle class, there is no money for medicine to treat the thousands of people sick with cholera. The treatable disease has killed more than 400 people there.

So, we aren't talking about a right to a certain income, we are talking about the costs to society, as well as individuals, when there are only the very rich and the very poor.

Maybe it doesn't bother you.

As far as John Edwards is concerned, he lied about his sex life, not the economic realities of the growing disparities of two Americas. And his thesis was well supported with facts.

I agree with you on getting rid of health insurance. It is part of why medical costs are so high. Years ago, if you needed surgery, you could actually afford to pay for it in cash. Then more people got insurance and the medical system jacked up its prices to take advantage of the deep pockets. I know because I was a respiratory therapist at a teaching hospital in Chicago. I remember when they started billing every infant in pediatric ICU $50 a day for oxygen, whether the infant used it or not, because it was "available." It was available because it was piped through the walls to an outlet at every bed in the hospital.

And as far as your cavalier statement that the poor and homeless are always with us regardless of the economic times, I would say two things: 1) that's no reason not to change the situation, and 2) the situation is growing markedly worse and people of good conscience have difficulty watching other people suffer without moving to help them.

[beltwaybandit]

This concept of "two Americas" is a lot of political rhetoric designed to appeal to certain constituencies in the country.

In 1893, the start of the first depression in this country, there was not yet even a middle class in the U.S. That came about in the early 1900's with irnoically, Ford developing the assembly line.

In the 1930s...the second and worst depression in the country...there definitely was a middle class that was battered by 25% unemployment (four times what it is right now) and there remained rich people, although not as rich as they once were.

Sadly, the homeless and the very poor are always with us, regardless of economic times.

So, what is with this "two Americas"?

What has changed?

Lin Young seems angry because of inability to afford health insurance. Understandable.

As a nation we need to drop the complaints about lack of affordable health insurance and avoid buying into the mindless rhetoric of politicians like Edwards who ultimately prove to be liars, and focus on reality:

1. There has always been a rich class and a poor class in this country.

2. The middle class was artifically created by a businessman in the early 1900s.

3. No one has a right to, nor is there a guarantee of, a certain level of financial status in this world.

4. The solution for receipt of healthcare is NOT to mandate insurance for everyone at some ridiculous cost. The solution is to do away with health insurance, lower doctor and prescription costs as well as hospital costs since insurance companies are no longer around to skim cash of the system, and let people pay directly. It will cost less than the costs of health insurance, making it more accessible.

Besides, right now if someone who is uninsured goes to an emergency room in this country for care, law says they must be treated and Medicare covers the cost. Even the poor people in the country right this minute have health care accessible to them.

It would seem that "middle class" journalists may be arguing that they somehow have a right to employment. Kind of like the United Auot Workers often argue.

As we are seeing, reality says: not true!

[Lin Young]

And there is some reason why journalists would be immune from the problem that middle class Americans in every other sector are facing?

Former presidential candidate John Edwards didn't make up the reality that there are two Americas, or the fact that Americans are faced with having less than their parent's generation did. It is fact.

Although my income is solidly middle-class, I don't have employer sponsored health care and I can't afford to buy it on my own. But because I have a middle class income, I earn too much to qualify for any government program, which means that I can't afford health care.

Up until a few years ago, I went to dermatologists to have moles removed for cosmetic reasons. Now, if a mole turned cancerous, or if I got a simple melanoma from being out in Florida's sun too long, it would be a death sentence for me. Can you imagine? It's like I live in a third world nation or something.

And I don't bother trying to find money for a mammogram, because, again, I couldn't afford to pay for treatment if I did get breast cancer. But I earn too much to qualify for any government health care program.

Here I am. A college educated woman, with one-third of the credits I need for a master's degree in journalism, living in the wealthiest developed nation on earth, earning a middle class income and breast cancer would be a death sentence for me.

Actually, I don't use Western medicine all that much to begin with, but with cancer I sure would, if I could. I was so concerned about having access to health care that after I divorced my husband of 18 years, I paid $450 a month for COBRA continuation of my health insurance through his company. Finally, I stopped, because I really don't use health care much and the premium was killing my budget. I'm healthy, no medical problems except from old injuries, and that I can deal with as long as I do Yoga and Pilates every day.

But Yoga, Pilates, vitamins and healthy eating are not adequate weapons against cancer. And those things wouldn't have helped straighten my teeth, so I'm sure glad that my middle class parents had the money to pay for braces when I was a kid.

But if I had kids right now, my gosh, I don't know how I would manage financially. Although my income is middle class - according to the definition - I wouldn't be able to pay for braces for a child.

We are increasingly two Americas, with an endangered and struggling middle class in its death throes.

[joe hillman]

welcome to the real world my friend.

great analogy if not painful (seriously), only problem is journalism never had the economic clout of a steel plant. newspapers never kept a community afloat financially.

but to your point: (sigh) the sooner print reporters realize they are the 21st century equivilent of buggy whip salesmen, the better it will be. those still employed in the industry should consider it a great luxury... icing on the cake.

and be prepared for that cake to be eaten.

life will go on, the globe will continue to spin. dreams will be lost.

join the club.

(people who really, really, really love what they do salaries are not a great concern. look at teachers, biologists and any number of professions. you do it because you love it, not for the commas on the check.)

btw, who first suggested in this forum that copy editors from india could be used?

seems i'm not the only person to think of that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30dowd.html?_r=1

[beltwaybandit]

The news infrastructure in the U.S., and elsewhere, is currently undergoing a radical tranformation. The process is taking time and during that transition part of the cost is going to be jobs in all segments of the news business.

However, in some cases the changes make a fair amount of sense.

Miles O'Brien is an excellent reporter...very familiar with him and his work.

Yet, with the U.S. manned space program schedued to conduct a very rapid slowdown as the shuttle phases out and an uncertain future, why should a network dedicate a reporter and staff to cover it? Especially when the remaining technology stories can be covered, well enough, by general assignment staff.

In this case, the old Russian philosophy of "better is the enemy of good enough" applies.

In other cases, not so.

Newspapers using "outsourced" coverage by remote control makes little sense and in time, the audience will revolt and the newspaper will suffer long term damage.

Painful as it is, all of this is needed as the media business is forced to come to grips with the new reality.

Once the digital infrastructure is decided and installed, the time will come when quality reporting will be a requirement. But the days of superstar reporters making six igure salaries are over. Only the very few who are able to project credibility to author quality "columns" will flourish in the digital age.

That said, your question about future journalists being attracted and trained to the profession is valid.

But that is not part of the decision process of what media companies have to do today. They can't afford to worry about it right now.