I used to be a journalist. That's right, an actual reporter who covered city council and school board meetings, elections and day-to-day feature stories. I worked on deadline and I remember on election nights not getting home until 3 a.m. I did this for almost two years, then on Dec. 30, 2008, I got laid off.
I was only a reporter for a short time, but it was during that time I saw the journalism industry take probably the largest economical hit ever. The newspaper I worked at laid off their first reporter ever (me), but they suffered one of the least. About a month or so after I was laid off, a paper in Battle Creek, Mich., laid off half their staff. Battle Creek is about 20 minutes from Kalamazoo — where I received my undergraduate degree. The Detroit Free Press decided it couldn't afford to deliver the newspaper to homes during all days of the week. As of March 30, 2009, they now only deliver it on only Thursdays and Fridays.
Of course newspapers in Michigan hit home the most for me because that's my home state, but other newspapers nationwide were laying off staff, or worse — closing. Perhaps the most substantial news I remember hearing regarding newspaper downturns is the closing of the Rocky Mountain News, a paper with a circulation of more than 250,000, on Feb. 27, 2009.
Getting to my point: Why didn't journalists see this coming? Or maybe we did, but why didn't we try to catch up with changes in media?
It goes back to college, I think. I was never taught ways to tell stories through video, or ways to enhance stories online. I know colleges are trying to implement courses that teach these skills now, but why didn't it happen earlier? The only attempt of adapting to "new media" I saw was newspapers regurgitating their content verbatim online. What's the point of buying a newspaper then? I think it is partly my fault, too, because I never took a computer class of any kind to strengthen those skills. But I didn't know I needed to. Looking back now, I wish an adviser would have told me to do so, but none of this would have prevented me from getting laid off.
So now journalists must learn how to shoot video, write in a blog and update Twitter and Facebook. They must find time to do this in addition to their other daily tasks, and some must complete everything in fewer hours due to budget cuts. Ouch.
To me, newspapers should have slightly different content online than what subscribers see in print. Maybe a video explaining things using sights and sounds, something a print story can't do. Or have a link to a blog a staff member wrote about the topic, or a link to a discussion about the article on a Twitter or Facebook page. A lot of newspapers are starting to do this, but why are they just starting?
I don't mean to place the blame on just newspapers. Even just five years ago I don't think anyone knew how fast media was going to change. I think newspapers have been trying their best to adapt, but it has been a slow process. No newspaper has given me a reason to subscribe when I can easily get the news I want online, and in better form in my opinion.
I guess my point to all of this is that if newspapers and colleges adapted to new media, or "emerging media" quicker and more easily, then maybe newspapers wouldn't be in the state they're in now. Maybe I wouldn't have gotten laid off. But if I hadn't gotten laid off I wouldn't be in Milwaukee, or grad school. Or even writing in this blog. I digress.
Journalism will continue, it's just a matter of how and in what form.
I was only a reporter for a short time, but it was during that time I saw the journalism industry take probably the largest economical hit ever. The newspaper I worked at laid off their first reporter ever (me), but they suffered one of the least. About a month or so after I was laid off, a paper in Battle Creek, Mich., laid off half their staff. Battle Creek is about 20 minutes from Kalamazoo — where I received my undergraduate degree. The Detroit Free Press decided it couldn't afford to deliver the newspaper to homes during all days of the week. As of March 30, 2009, they now only deliver it on only Thursdays and Fridays.
Of course newspapers in Michigan hit home the most for me because that's my home state, but other newspapers nationwide were laying off staff, or worse — closing. Perhaps the most substantial news I remember hearing regarding newspaper downturns is the closing of the Rocky Mountain News, a paper with a circulation of more than 250,000, on Feb. 27, 2009.
Getting to my point: Why didn't journalists see this coming? Or maybe we did, but why didn't we try to catch up with changes in media?
It goes back to college, I think. I was never taught ways to tell stories through video, or ways to enhance stories online. I know colleges are trying to implement courses that teach these skills now, but why didn't it happen earlier? The only attempt of adapting to "new media" I saw was newspapers regurgitating their content verbatim online. What's the point of buying a newspaper then? I think it is partly my fault, too, because I never took a computer class of any kind to strengthen those skills. But I didn't know I needed to. Looking back now, I wish an adviser would have told me to do so, but none of this would have prevented me from getting laid off.
So now journalists must learn how to shoot video, write in a blog and update Twitter and Facebook. They must find time to do this in addition to their other daily tasks, and some must complete everything in fewer hours due to budget cuts. Ouch.
To me, newspapers should have slightly different content online than what subscribers see in print. Maybe a video explaining things using sights and sounds, something a print story can't do. Or have a link to a blog a staff member wrote about the topic, or a link to a discussion about the article on a Twitter or Facebook page. A lot of newspapers are starting to do this, but why are they just starting?
I don't mean to place the blame on just newspapers. Even just five years ago I don't think anyone knew how fast media was going to change. I think newspapers have been trying their best to adapt, but it has been a slow process. No newspaper has given me a reason to subscribe when I can easily get the news I want online, and in better form in my opinion.
I guess my point to all of this is that if newspapers and colleges adapted to new media, or "emerging media" quicker and more easily, then maybe newspapers wouldn't be in the state they're in now. Maybe I wouldn't have gotten laid off. But if I hadn't gotten laid off I wouldn't be in Milwaukee, or grad school. Or even writing in this blog. I digress.
Journalism will continue, it's just a matter of how and in what form.
RSS Feed