The Printer’s Devil

Jump to Comments

I heard from someone who helps contribute information and ideas to this site.

A small-town paper he liked in a community he liked advertised for a new reporter — and at a salary that was semi-decent (for the newspaper business.

He regarded the paper as a nearly perfect situation for him and given his experience and writing abilities, figured his odds of being picked were highly favorable.

The publisher, who he knew, called to announce the news. The reporter was wonderful and turned in wonderful writing samples, but he wouldn’t be hired because the publisher was looking for a young reporter.

“New blood,” the publisher said.

Needless to say, the reporter was crushed.

I, on the other hand, nodded.

As I’ve mentioned, the newspaper business is strangling itself by the number of stupid but busy publishers and publishing companies making a never-ending succession of stupid decisions.

They aren’t willing to deal with the root cause of the news industry’s problem — they don’t respect good writing and reporting and they’re not willing to pay to get it — and they try a variety of gimmicks instead, in hopes it would be cheaper and paper over the root cause. But each gimmick costs newspapers more and make them weaker as they drive away more loyal readers. TV or the Internet have far less to do with the loss of readers.

Any way, stupid but busy publishers love “new blood.” They think it will lead to more of the much-coveted young readers — and be cheaper to boot. And young reporters are more willing to work nights and weekends, they think.

However, there’s one skunk in the woodpile, which I’ve mentioned before. Those who would be the best and brightest reporters and editors avoid journalism in general and newspapers in particular. University officials, who are a pretty stupid lot but not as stupid as publishers, have been closing or downsizing their journalism schools or converting them into “communications schools.” Most college students who are looking for fatter paychecks or ways to make a positive influence on the word have a far better take on the journalism industry that publishers and avoid it. Those that do take journalism classes do so for particular reasons, and it’s not to work for newspapers. Each year, only a handful — and I do mean a handful — of students who graduate from journalism schools are willing to work for newspapers and only to have something on a resume to springboard to better-paying public relations jobs.

Most of those journalism graduates who form the “young blood” pool for newspapers aren’t all that competent or have little potential or inclination to become competent.

That means more shoddy reporting and crappy writing. You’ll find as you look at circulation numbers, newspapers that go for crappy writing or severely understaffed newsrooms to cut costs are also cutting their readers as well.

And the idea that young reporters, most of whom might hang around at most for a couple years cranking out mediocre copy and have little interest in the community, would appeal to readers, who are increasingly older seems dicey to me.

And the idea that young reporters will attract young readers: why do publishers seems to think crappy writing will attract young readers merely because the reporters are young?

Young readers will read good writing — Harry Potter’s adventures, which are marvelous writing, have millions of young fans who got headaches from reading too much in one sitting. And author J.K. Rowling wouldn’t qualify as a “young blood.”

Newspapers aren’t suffering because young and other readers go to the Internet, watch TV play video games or other things. Young and other readers are suffering because newspapers are doing other things instead good reporting and writing. Then they abandon newspapers.