4 ms·

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

by delano 17y ago

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 17y ago
> 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 17y ago
  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?

by delano 17y ago

Nwallins 17y ago

> 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 17y ago
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?