Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why journalists deserve low pay

csmonitor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 35 posts

Re: Why journalists deserve low pay

#11

Post by swombat »

stevejalim wrote: post #4
swombat wrote: post #2

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.

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...

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.

Re: Why journalists deserve low pay

#12

Post by stevejalim »

swombat wrote: post #11
stevejalim wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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…

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...

Re: Why journalists deserve low pay

#13

Post by swombat »

stevejalim wrote: post #12
swombat wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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...

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

Re: Why journalists deserve low pay

#14

Post by swombat »

dhs wrote: post #5

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.

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.

Re: Why journalists deserve low pay

#15

Post by olihb »

swombat wrote: post #11
stevejalim wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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…

I agree more or less. I think it's important to have a regional view on events. For example, here in Quebec we have a couple of journalists in the mainstream media covering events in the United States. After the 9-11 attacks, all the coverage coming from US media was very patriotic and in a sense very biased where the coverage coming from abroad was more critical and factual. Even if an article reports only facts, it can still be biased depending on which facts are reported or how the article is framed.

I would say that the main problems with journalism these days are the reliance on pundits, commentators, the public and partisan organizations instead of analysts, good journalists and factually based editorials. In another life, I worked in a PR agency(not very proud...) and usually journalists(from reputable newspapers) would copy verbatim our press releases. The crap they publish is astounding...

Well that was quite a rant.

Re: Why journalists deserve low pay

#16

Post by lallysingh »

stevejalim wrote: post #4
swombat wrote: post #2

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.

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...

s/lazy journalists/stenographers/g.

Speech to text, or text-to-text, translation isn't worth much anymore. Journalists will have to actually report on what's really going on, instead of hiding behind objectivity.

Re: Why journalists deserve low pay

#18

Post by jerf »

delano wrote: post #8

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.

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"?

Re: Why journalists deserve low pay

#19

Post by Nwallins »

delano wrote: post #8

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.

I am not saying it is indisputable, but the article did a much better job of supporting its arguments and conclusions. I did not detect any confusion.

What is 'the manner in which businesses have been run over the past 20 years', why does it matter, and why does it trump the article's arguments?

Re: Why journalists deserve low pay

#20

Post by Nwallins »

access_denied wrote: post #7
zcrar70 wrote: post #3

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.

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

That labor has to create value, though, right? No one would get paid to dig a hole on Monday and fill it back up on Tuesday, ad nauseum...
Post reply on HN