An informal survey conducted by Will Sullivan of Journerdism in October 2007 examined the pay rates of online journalists. Sullivan’s survey produced 72 responses from online editors, directors and photographers/videographers in the U.S., and even in Asia, the United Kingdom and South America.
While I am generally not interested in the money aspect of my career, three years as a meager college student has opened up many adult realities, mostly involving the importance of a steady income. Moreover, I know we all desire to be successful and aspire to be someone important. There will most likely be times when we turn to our given salary as a convenient measure of our worth.
Sullivan believes online journalists earn a mode salary of about $45,000, about $3,000-$5,000 more in salary compared to those in print, all depending on the cost of living. That’s somewhat comforting, and may or may not be surprising for some of us.
What’s most interesting about Sullivan’s survey, however, is that online producers (those who program and design online multimedia) can often make $5,000-$15,000 less than online editors (those who oversee web teams and the market).
It seems the journalism industry (like all others, I suppose), is more about those in executive positions than it is about those who work just as hard, if not harder. The convergent online news industry is still evolving with more skills required of journalists, but their salaries don’t seem to be following along the same lines. In the case of Sullivan’s survey, salaries may prove to be an inadequate and quite arbitrary indicator of some journalists’ efforts.
That’s trifling. Online producers, who have skills in HTML/CSS, Flash, video, audio, photography, graphic design and everything else interactive, seem like they should earn more for their relatively rare skills. It certainly takes a lot more than “wearing a tie,” as Sullivan wrote, to do the things they do. (I have learned to appreciate really impressive interactive packages now, such as this one from The Dallas Morning News. How many of us can design and program something like that? I guess, in the future, maybe all of us).
Online editors no doubt have a demanding and important role in presenting news, and seriously, more power to them. But I hope that the Journerdism survey is somewhat misrepresented and that producers really do earn what they deserve for whatever skills they bring to their organization.
Does anyone currently know people in the industry who might be able to add more to this? What are your thoughts?
For those of us who will have some job in online news media, it shouldn’t matter how much you ultimately make, of course. Money isn’t as important to me as the creative value of the job itself. Still, Sullivan’s survey has taught me, at the very least, to find a job in the industry where we can be appreciated for what we can bring to the table (and quite frankly, our computer).
7 comments:
Ruben -- What a wonderful and thoughtful post! I'd like you to direct some of those queries to this Friday's speaker, Josh Williams, who has an extremely sophisticated arsenal of digital skills. See if he can address some of your concerns ...
Thanks again,
Amy Eisman
Great post. I found it surprising that online journalists make more money than those who work in print. Sure, they may have more technical skills but I just do not see how online media outlets could have more money to pay their writers and editors. But then again, journalists working for print editions rarely become millionaires, either:
I have a friend who worked as a features writer for a print publication in the D.C. metro area. After five years of working there, she was still struggling to make ends meet because her salary was so incredibly low.
As you said, money should not matter as long as you are happy with your job. However, it is very hard to pay your rent and bills with a happy smile:)
Well done, Ruben.
And a valid discussion indeed. I think you bring up an interesting point when you suggest that three years as a college student teaches us that while money isn't everything, it makes a big difference. I have to admit that for me personally, if I am offered a higher paying post at a publication (be it online or in print) of less interest to me or journalistic vision, I would be very tempted to take it.
Very odd that online journalists make more, but I suppose their skill set (and their willingness to work for a format that requires an ever-expanding set of skills) means that online publications are willing to pay more.
I look forward to seeing where journalism is headed after this. I think we are definitely at a crossroads and no one really knows where we are headed. With one year left, I am increasingly concerned about the prospect of finding a job... any job, no matter how low the pay.
I'd rather make less money working in print than having to deal with the hassle of buying a blackberry or iPhone or something dumb like that, learn how to use a camera for "legitimate" purposes, and dumbing down my writing. I don't plan on being a superjournalist or a regular newspaper journalist anyway, so this really doesn't matter.
I have to say, I'm quite shocked that some online journalists make more than their print counterparts. Granted, that trend makes sense for all of the reasons previous posters have outlined, but I always imagined top newspaper executives as overwhelmingly pro-print (and, to a lesser degree, anti-convergence). I guess this proves otherwise?
And I think your mention of the Dallas Morning News' Unequal Justice series is more than appropriate here. When I profiled the series for my case study, I spoke to this woman, April, who worked on the project's splash page. Of course, I spent the majority of the time asking about her interactivity experience, but I couldn't resist asking her at least one extratopical question about her e-mail signature, in which she signs every message with her name and her job title: "Interactive journalist."
A little taken aback by my inquiry, April told me that she's essentially a one-man team; that there are entire features on the DMS' Web site written, photographed, video taped and designed by her. She sees all of her projects from start to finish, she said, and even maintains some degree of editorial control, I surmised.
I think April is our answer to why designers make less than some journalists: The industry has become so competitive that specialization is no longer the recipe for success. The best journalists, at least according to newspapers' cash-strapped business offices, are the most self-sufficient, because it costs considerably less to hire one person who can perform everyone's job as well, if not better, than those who specialize only in one field.
Maybe that's great for journalism -- I think you'd be remiss to find anyone who believes interactive investigations are a bad thing -- but it makes the job hunt all the more difficult. It's perhaps why AU cajoles its dual BA/MA degree students into switching from print to broadcast (or vice versa), and its certainly why we're taking this class this semester.
Finally, I can't say I'm shocked that the execs receive the most money. Forgive my assumptive generalization, but I think that's the case in most professions. Good way to kick off the blog, Ruben.
Tony
Tony, you are a terrific writer; I particularly liked how you asked April some "extratopical" questions! I find the discussion about generalist vs. technically skilled everyman to be an interesting one, with yet another layer. I think a generalist reporter -- in topic or skills -- is likely less sought these days; if you are a reporter with a deep interest in health or personal finance, you are probably in good shape. This is not true about entry level. For entry level jobs I think you should have great reporting and journalism skills, and a few multimedia skills. It helps if you like it. :-)
Amy Eisman
(Andrew Gardner: More $$ never makes a lousy job better. I promise.)
I've noticed a gender gap in the field of journalism: print, online, public relations, and even braodcast.
More women are interested in the field of communications. I guess women like to talk!
I had a conversation with my supervisor from WPNI last semester and we were discussing women in our field. She observed how more men are leaving the business and finding jobs that pay better. As a result women are replacing their jobs for equal or lesser pay. So I'm upset with women in field...because we have come so far in the industry yet are not getting a justified salary.
Our field is becoming more competitative not so much with men...but with other women. What will this do for society? Jobs? News?
It makes absolute sense for online journalists to get paid more...it's a trend...it is the tipping point in journalism.
Post a Comment