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

31–35 of 35 posts

Re: Why journalists deserve low pay

#31

Post by delano »

Nwallins wrote: post #28
delano wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> 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." > th…

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?

Re: Why journalists deserve low pay

#32

Post by 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?

Re: Why journalists deserve low pay

#34

Post by KazamaSmokers »

PaulMorgan wrote: post #22
KazamaSmokers wrote: post #17

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

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.

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

Re: Why journalists deserve low pay

#35

Post by anamax »

anamax wrote: post #29
mblakele wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 inve…

Argh - too late to edit. I meant to write that Watergate doesn't look journalists look GOOD.
Post reply on HN