From 2000-2002, after the first dot-com bubble burst, the industry experienced the first wave of mass layoffs. At that time, the newspaper and magazine sectors were still relatively strong and were able to absorb some displaced writers and editors, but some started to go over to the "dark side" (PR). At my company it was also possible for senior writers and editors to go into research, which was seen as a more respectable alternative career path than corporate PR.
There was a slight recovery from 2003-2004, but then an interesting thing started to happen: a steady trickle of slow-motion layoffs, consolidations, and other cost-cutting measures. The weaker pubs began to fail as demand for print advertising dried up, and events began to feel the heat too as new entrants muscled their way into the scene. In some cases, staff were shifted to growing online units, but overall there was a net loss of staff in editorial, ad operations, and events.
Starting around 2005 or so, I began to notice a curious thing: Many of the 30-something journalists in my organization were voluntarily moving to industry. Some started to work for PR agencies, but in many cases they moved to in-house marketing units of large tech companies -- Microsoft, CA, Bose, etc. Certainly the pay and benefits were attractive but my own sense was there didn't seem to be much of a future staying in journalism. Why keep a job which offers little chance to advance and could probably lead to layoffs in the near future?
People stopped using the term "the dark side" around that time. It's hard to make some ethical stand about the purity of the profession when people are getting laid off or taking a salary cut while serious journalism is being sacrificed for the sake of pageview-heavy slideshows and blogs.
There has been another narrative that "citizen journalists" would either disrupt the industry, or replace the roles of journalists whose industry had been disrupted. This has come with mixed results for everyday journalism. In the case of investigative journalism, it just doesn't seem to be happening.
This level of depth in journalism requires time and skill. The choice seems to either work a full time job to supplement this hobby and having zero time for other things in life, or living without financial security. There is the other risk that this type of journalism tends to create enemies which can hurt job security. It can also hurt your career if you are seen as someone who isn't able to keep a secret. Individuals also expose themselves to the risks of libel and slander lawsuits.
Most people who can pull off journalism like this are usually going to be capable of pursuing a dozen other more lucrative and less stressful careers.
There has been another narrative that "citizen journalists" would either disrupt the industry, or replace the roles of journalists whose industry had been disrupted.
Yeah, I think the results are in on that one. It turns out that the people who are most motivated to work for peanuts to establish 'the truth' are often also the most partisan on any given issue and with the least commitment to journalistic neutrality. The websites that solicit content creation from the readership tend towards becoming echo chambers.
>In the case of investigative journalism, it just doesn't seem to be happening.
And what's covered is very uneven. Apple burps. The same (often thinly or non-existently sourced) story will appear in thousands of places.
On the other hand, the largely rural town that I live in only has a newspaper to the degree that something is of sufficient note to make it into the chain local news operation of an adjacent larger town. We actually had a good local newspaper for a while that was basically a labor of love but the publisher became ill and it shut down. But now no one consistently covers town hall, board of selectman, etc. meetings.
It used to be common to see "paid advertisement" inserts in major magazines. Sometimes going on for a dozen pages. It was clear they were PR pieces: typeset differently and with a different editorial style than the rest of the magazine. Sometime in the mid-2000s they simply seemed to go away and now the magazine just uses the PR pieces as content filler, completely indistinguishable from the rest of the periodical.
From 2000-2002, after the first dot-com bubble burst, the industry experienced the first wave of mass layoffs. At that time, the newspaper and magazine sectors were still relatively strong and were able to absorb some displaced writers and editors, but some started to go over to the "dark side" (PR). At my company it was also possible for senior writers and editors to go into research, which was seen as a more respectable alternative career path than corporate PR.
There was a slight recovery from 2003-2004, but then an interesting thing started to happen: a steady trickle of slow-motion layoffs, consolidations, and other cost-cutting measures. The weaker pubs began to fail as demand for print advertising dried up, and events began to feel the heat too as new entrants muscled their way into the scene. In some cases, staff were shifted to growing online units, but overall there was a net loss of staff in editorial, ad operations, and events.
Starting around 2005 or so, I began to notice a curious thing: Many of the 30-something journalists in my organization were voluntarily moving to industry. Some started to work for PR agencies, but in many cases they moved to in-house marketing units of large tech companies -- Microsoft, CA, Bose, etc. Certainly the pay and benefits were attractive but my own sense was there didn't seem to be much of a future staying in journalism. Why keep a job which offers little chance to advance and could probably lead to layoffs in the near future?
People stopped using the term "the dark side" around that time. It's hard to make some ethical stand about the purity of the profession when people are getting laid off or taking a salary cut while serious journalism is being sacrificed for the sake of pageview-heavy slideshows and blogs.