January 04, 2005

• I'll ask my wife for her opinions on this (she's been a journalist for many moons), and SideDish probably has some good advice, but that's an editor's job, from what it sounds like. Maybe now would be a good time to ask for a raise.
• This much creative responsibility would require a hefty increase, methinks, although I've always heard journalism is peanuts, so I've got no basis for comparison, really.
• It sounds to me like he's taking advantage of you, and making you do his work. But I'm not in the industry, so take that for what it's worth.
• I would ask for a raise if means that much extra work. For $25,000 I would happily take dump in his ficus tree, though.
• Personally I'd just get stuck into the task at hand and see what you can come up with. Good results would be a convincing argument in the case for a raise. You don't really have anything to lose.
• Surely you wouldn't crap on a Congressional runner-up?
• This could actually be a good opportunity for you -- to gain skills and take on way more responsibility than you'd get at other papers in the same position. As far as getting free content goes, op-ed pages are typically full of pieces from unpaid (by the newspaper, at least) "experts" of all stripes; I'd approach local academics, school board members, business groups, church leaders, etc. to try to get folks to contribute their thoughts to your op-ed page. And think about boosting the profile of your letters to the editor section, to further generate free content. But MCT is correct -- the job description you give is an editor's job description. Let your boss know that you know that (which you can probably do, if the boss is indeed "cool"), and ask for a raise. Failing that, try to get the boss to agree to a promotion and raise at some specific point down the road if you hit your goals (which you should define with your boss in more detail -- i.e. what exactly does "better than the Times" mean?). Your boss is trying to get as much out of you as possible before you leave for a bigger paper in a bigger market, which is what young go-getters in your position typically do. A great experience and great resume are going to be your real pay-offs in this picture. But you have to make sure you don't feel like you're getting taken advantage of to take full advantage of your situation (if that makes sense...).
• I agree with Bondurant, if that's what you want. Are you ambitious? Do you want to advance in the field, build a reputation as quickly as possible, etc? If so, go ahead and do what you can, and be clear about what you don't think you'll be able to do. If he's basically good at what he does, he'll understand, and your views in his eyes will go up based on what you can accomplish. However, when next year's evaluation comes up, you be sure to bring up all the things you accomplish, and what you intend to do next year, and that you expect to make $X increase for it. On the other hand, if you don't want to rise as quickly as possible in the world of media, then don't go crazy. There's nothing wrong with that, it's important to stress, but you should go with your goals. Finally, don't let yourself become burned out. You should be able to go for, say, 4-8 years without doing so, but if you find yourself becoming bitter, fix the situation.
• Numbers 2 through 5 are all doable, obviously. Quite a bit of work, but doable. Frankly, I don't know how you resisted the urge to laugh in his face at #1. You might try to bring him down to earth on this. Bondurant and Sandspider have good points here. If you pull this off to your editor's satisfaction, you'll be a superstar. IF, and this is a big if, he's the kind to reward such good work. I've seen friends of my wife who were damned good journalists, among the best at their respective papers, get *jerked* around on promotions and raises after killing themselves to go above and beyond the call. Always it was dangled out there, but never did they deliver. One finally put in her notice (she'd been offered a better job in a bigger market), and the editorial staff collectively got down on its knees and begged her to stay, promised her the moon. This was after two years of fucking about on their part. She politely told them to fuck off. But this was Gannett, one big mother of a corporation, with all the baggage that entails. It was also at a fairly big paper that has a justly-earned reputation for destroying all good, noticeable writing before it makes it into print. YMMV. But they're right -- you have nothing to lose on this and possibly quite a bit to gain. At the very least, you'll have something really good to put on your resume, in case your editor does screw you over.
• Gannett sucks balls. I think my paper is more fair and just. I have an evaluation coming up in 4 months. Which is why I'd like to sort of attempt this stuff but if I don't get a substantial raise (I'm asking for a $10k raise, which brings me to about 65% of my market value as an assistant opinion editor at this size paper) I'm going to just be beyond upset. Other thing is, there's no way I can do this stuff before said evaluation. A LITTLE maybe. But at this point I'm not sure what my boss DOES anymore. He writes a couple editorials a week (I write a plurality) and decides which letters to scan in (I choose letters for publication and edit them). If he disappears for a few days I can run the section on my own with no trouble or at least no more than usual. So I'm not sure why he makes four times what I do. Argh.
• Similar story to MCT... my wife spent several years as a researcher in a large university-government lab. She took on a lot of big projects that went outside the scope of her duties (like IT and networking). When word got out that she was quitting to tend to our family, they practically begged her to stay on and offered a 50-60% pay raise. I have no idea how to tell whether calling the boss' bluff works, but I'd imagine it wouldn't if they're not even recognizing who is valuable (i.e. a Dilbert corp).
• How big is the newsroom? Doesn't sound very large. I'd agree with the people saying to do what you can on the project and acknowledge what you can't—other people will no doubt notice that you're being asked to take on more than you should be, and will act accordingly if you tackle the job or bail. Not knowing anything else about your editor, I'd actually say he's getting ready to jump ship himself, whether for retirement or another job. It sounds like he's basically asking you to take over the section. Also, on a side note, it's my belief (as a cynical occasional journalist) that items 1 and 2 are fundamentally incompatible unless you are the NYT or the Tribune, as local matters != interesting for the most part. Good luck.
• Oh, and your editor makes $100k? I didn't realize journalism was so lucrative. What's your circulation?
• I need advice about whether I'm being asked WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much at my job The answer, is yes, always yes. Step 2 is documenting this state of affairs. You can always find a slacker co-worker to use as your yard measure. Step 3 is leveraging this fact to get a raise. And if step 3 fails, move to Step 4, insta-fodder for hilarious Dilbert-esque blog ... with google text ads. Step 5 is, of course, Profit!
• Exactly how does one create an opinion page and editorials with 'very little stuff about politics, if any'? I can't see how it's possible do so without being glaringly obvious that the paper is deliberately avoiding controversy in order not to offend anyone. However, beige pablum news is unlikely to appeal to anyone. As for attracting writers who'll work for free, I doubt you'll have any trouble. I have a friend who wanted to be a reporter, and she volunteered for two years at a small paper, writing and doing field research before discovering that she hated the job. From what she told me, there were many, many people who were eager to make the same attempt, only a few of whom were allowed to 'apprentice' in this fashion.
• Chrominance, once you're the lead editor of a section and have been there a decade or longer, six figures is certainly not out of reach, even at a mid-sized daily. We've got a circ of 50k (75 sunday). I agree that local issues are boring as hell. I also agree that he's handing me the reins. He's nearing sixty years old and is a bit of a wildcard as far as people go. I wouldn't be surprised if he left when he turned 60, early 2006.
• coppermac, my editor has made a name for himself and won a bunch of awards by writing brilliant pieces about nothing. Email me for samples. He writes very well and touchingly. But a lot of it is slice of life and I say you can only have one of those a day or people will get bored as shit.
• (sorry for the triple post, but I thought I'd mention: chrominance, starting pay for the editor of an opinion section at a small to mid size daily is right around $60k to $68k in the median. Even for assistant opinion editors, $35-50k tends to be normal wages.)
• It's been a while since I worked for a paper, so here goes. I don't know how big your paper is (what's the market/circulation?), but there is no money in small newspapers, at least last time I checked. The extra work for no-money request is common, and, in my experience, a $10k raise is laughable. The writers at our local rag are happy for pennies/hour raises, and the paper refuses to pay for any freelancing. The paper is a couple of big local stories, obituaries, legals, classifieds, and the rest is canned. The fresh-out-of-school editor of another local, very tiny paper had loads of responsibility, decided she'd had enough, and got a new job as a paralegal. So, if you're in love with this newspaper thing and have a solid career plan, then take on the extra responsibility, do your best, boost your resume, and get to a bigger/better paper. Also, you'll find plenty of suckers willing to write for free, so don't worry about that. However, if you think you'll ever desire a decent amount of money and respect from your employer, get out of newspapers. Go back to school. Get a law degree. Move into some other form of journalism. Change your career totally. Whatever. But get out of newspapers. You will always be asked to do more and more, with less, and for less. One last thing: I thought big papers were better, but I recently had a look at the Tallahassee Democrat and it was little better than the papers around here (NW GA), that is to say, a glorified shopper. Canned copy + comics + classifieds + legals = cash cow. I'm beginning to think that vibrant small/medium papers are pretty much dead.
• [mental note: go back to journalism.]
• I used to work at your paper, musingmelpomene, and they will suck you dry. Don't expect to be paid what you are worth; there's a reason for the high turnover. It's merely a stepping stone, so do what you can with this "opportunity," get a good file of clips, then move on to a place that will respect you in the morning.
• How long have you worked there?
• How much you make has absolutely nothing to do with what you're asked to do. It's got to do with two things: how much somebody else would pay you, and how much your employer would have to pay somebody else to do your job. Are you being asked to do too much? Don't be ridiculous. The things you listed are an opinion page editor's job. If you think you can make more elsewhere, start sending out clips, and more power to you. Nobody ever said the job would be easy. (I don't mean to be a dick. It's just that, having been unemployed since my newspaper went out of business in May, I would take your job with a smile on my face and a song in my heart. Hell, I'd even help you carry your stuff to the curb. While I'm sure your feelings are totally justified from your point of view, I have absolutely no patience for them from mine. No hard feelings.)
• A little late, but just to chime in - I'd definitely go with the "see this as an opportunity" opinion set. Certainly, jumping ship without even trying to do what he wants - perfectly justifiable in terms of salary and conditions though it may be - would look pretty bad on your CV in the future, no matter how you try to explain it. As Jeff says, it is kind of your job. Furthermore, although the conditions you're working with sound very difficult (the lack of writers, the lack of money, etc), the actual changes your editor wants sound pretty canny - local, relevant, quick, entertaining, with a mix of issue-led stuff (which is what I assume he means by "no politics"), slice-of-life, comedy and whimsy. These are good ways for a local paper to go, and could be a really exciting creative challenge. And achieve anything in this direction, it'll cast you in a very good light in the future. Especially if you acheive #1... :-) So yeah. Stick at it, for a while at least. I think it's essential that you give it a real go. If you try, do your best, and still he makes demands that are unrealistic (while not giving you a raise), then leave as fast as ever you can. But absolutely not before. (By the way, have you a University in the vicinty? For lo! Universities are full of over-ambitious journo wannabes, occasionally with some talent, who will happily contribute copy for the price of a beer. Real Life papers look so much better on the CV than college papers. Hell, they'd probably pay you to let them write... Or, just get the readers to write it. Lazy, I know, but it's also innovative and interactive and community-smart and people-focussed and other such bollocks.)
• Wednesday, people in my newspaper chain - indeed, at my newspaper itself - are getting higher wages. I was lowballed but didn't realize it because I was very grateful for the job duties as described. In fact, I know what the person in my position at the same-company-owned paper 50 miles away makes. And they haven't worked there very long, either. And they make about $35k. Most people in these positions make more. Jeff Harrell: Sure, it's the job of an opinion editor. But I'm not the opinion editor. The opinion editor gets paid a lot more than me, writes a lot less than me, and isn't getting involved in this "reinvention" outside of the asking me to do it. You're absolutely right that the person in charge of the section should be doing it. And that person is not me. It might interest you to know that I was unemployed and working shit temp jobs for 2 years after MY last paper went out of business. So I understand the "don't bitch, be grateful" attitude, but it's patronizing bullshit in context. I signed on for one set of job duties and have just been handed off basically my own plus what my boss ought to be doing, while my boss reads 18th century leatherbound books all day.
• We have no university. The local community college offers more classes in truck driving than in history or philosophy combined. FYI: I am in NO WAY considering quitting this job. Not in the least. I've worked too hard to get here. What I needed were some of the more constructive solutions here. There's a huge difference between an assistant editor and an editor - and I'm being asked to do BOTH jobs for minimal pay. I think I'm going to talk it over with the boss, bring up my problems and issues and ask him what his actual goals are for the page - not just what he wants but what he wants to achieve with it - so that I understand better. I'd also like to know where the fuck he expects me to find sources, and so I'll ask him that too. I agree that the page sounds like it could be interesting in a perfect world. In a perfect world filled with good writers I'd love to do it. However. If I showed you the letters I receive - even the better letters - every monkey here would cringe. There's just not the talent to do it, and since my editor is down to writing maybe 1-2 pieces per week, and since I have many other duties as well as writing (editing all letters, dummying pages, selecting articles, choosing art/cartoons, conferring with the copy desk), I certainly can't fill up the on-average 135 column inches of space on my own. We usually get barely enough coherent letters to fill our 25-inch daily letter space.
• Ah, right. I misunderstood the "jump out the window" comment as a suggestion you were thinking of quitting, instead of actually meaning "jump out the window". My apologies. Also, I sympathise with you predicament - sounds like the local papers in the area I grew up in, where I did some pretty grim work experience. Especially the letters. Oh, lord, the letters. Could you hit up local professionals to do you regular "A Doctor Writes", "A Fireman's Life", "Notes From A Superhero" type stuff (if you don't already have that, of course)? Equally, do people retire to your area, at all? As in, might there be ex-academics and ex-journalists and ex-doctors and ex-superheroes who have knowledge, experience, and too much time on their hands? Also, local writer's groups - do they exist? I'm currently having to think of quite similar stuff, as it happens - getting op-ed and columnists on the (very) cheap, presented in fun new ways, that sort of thing. Fortunately, we don't have the same problems with a lack of local talent - but a lot of the challenges sound the same, anyway. I'll let you know if we come up with anything that might work for you... um... the fact that I haven't got any ingenious suggestions right now does worry me somewhat... I think it might have been my job to come up with some of those by now...
• You probably already know this, but letter writers are going to be shit; that's why they just write letters instead of taking an actual interest in improving their writing. Again, this kind of stuff isn't really your job, it's your editor's, but on where to find writers, you might find it helpful to think of ideas before thinking of writers. So many people can't be bothered to write if they do all the work, either because they're busy or because they don't have anything particularly pressing on their minds to write about. But the earlier suggestion of slice-of-life columns are great. Something as simple as a People column, where you take some vaguely interesting or important person and interview them about their life for fifteen minutes, can work wonders; if you can get these people to write these articles themselves, all the better. Finding these people involves being fairly in touch with the community, of course, but that's probably part of the job description when it comes to being a good opinions editor. Also, I'm sure your editor would be quite keen to let you in on his mental rolodex. I'm seriously interested to hear if you simply get promoted in the next couple of months, because that's what the setup sounds like (brand new person, seems more than competent at the job but otherwise an unknown; older editor looking to scale back on his responsibilities; oh, and when did you put in for that raise, and what was the answer back). In any case, good luck.
• Sorry, in all that I forgot to get my original point about writers across: think of a topic people would be interested in, like education issues. Then find someone in the field who seems fairly intelligent, give 'em a test piece, see how it works out. If you put in enough work in casting your net on a wide array of issues and professions, you'll find a couple of decent writers that way. If you're lucky, they may later come up with their own story ideas as well.
• Meta-journalism is where the future lies. Get it?
• Get it? Too hard for me. Get it?
• do you have something else to do besides this? (as in another job)...cos if you don't, then hmmm...do your damn job. Ask for a raise when you produce results. Journalism is cut-throat and if that shit is gonna go on your resume, might as well juice it for all it's worth!
• Well, I finally found out what bug is up his ass. http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,65813,00.html That's what he read that inspired this. Doomsday prophecies. Now my strategy will be "talk him down."
• As a journalist for more than 10 years, I will tell you that editors often knowingly ask you to do far more than possible. They hope that, in trying to do the impossible, you will at least accomplish a few near-impossible feats. Aim for the sky. If you hit a bird but not a cloud, the editor will be happy. But he'll keep urging you to go higher. Baby steps. You won't hit a bird overnight. And you might never hit a cloud. Oh, and ask your editor if his pay/bonus is based on circulation growth if you have the balls. A lot of times, editors are motivated by money -- the way a salesman is motivated by money -- rather than by serving readers best. With some requests, he might be thinking with his pocketbook and not with his journalist's brain. Also, all good editors want content to rival what appears in the big-name papers. And they are all serious. Get used to it.
• Warrior, yes, I have PLENTY to do besides a fucking redesign. More than plenty. To give you an example of what a redesign usually entails, a friend of mine at a nearby paper is part of a group working on a redesign of their weekly entertainment insert. They had multiple focus groups and a huge team of people coming up with ideas and redesigning the damned thing. This is not a one-person job. I've never heard of anything remotely like this.
• I really think, after reading the Wired article, that he's operating on some false assumptions. Even smart people can be inclined to believe something they read wholeheartedly if it's scary enough and about a subject they don't know. So now I need to convince him about what it really means - and that it doesn't mean what he thinks it does, especially upon looking at the Wired article's sources.
• that's journalism, kiddo. you pay your dues your first few jobs. and it could always be worse, you could be an unpaid intern. (DON'T get me going on that. one of the shameful aspects of the profession -- slave labor. christ.) anyway, work at a small place, you put up with crap like that. but most of us do start at small papers -- my first job out of college in 1982 paid $165 a week BEFORE taxes. my advice: move up/out as quickly as possible. as in, do a great job, get good clips and/or references, network your ass off and get the hell out to a higher quality publication. (that first job of mine, i was only there nine months.) raises are nonexistent in many journalism jobs. seriously. you're very lucky to get annual cost of living, even at some of the mid-size papers. good luck, contact me via email if you want more specific assistance. meanwhile, keep an eye on the job market.
• A new suggestion: fake it. Throw it open to the monkeys, and we'll send you letters and op-ed pieces you won't believe, but your readers will. Tell us where you are and we'll "localise" the pieces (fake that, too). If your boss wants to send us presents at Christmas, all the better. I bet it could be done. I bet Something Awful would do it.
• >>There's a huge difference between an assistant editor and an editor - and I'm being asked to do BOTH jobs for minimal pay. you have no idea how common that is in the industry. seriously.
• musingmelpomene, if that article is what prompted your editor to do this, then you might not want to talk him down entirely. Because your editor is far from the only person in the newspaper industry who's read something like that, and far from the only one to believe it. (Also, he might well be right.) Remove the standard Wired "we are the future bwahahaha" glibbery from the piece, and it's pretty much what a lot of major newspapers are thinking about right now. The kind of changes he wants are pretty much the kind of changes that a huge number of newspapers will be making over the next few years (for good or bad). Doing some good work even vaguely in that direction will get you better jobs in the future. It may suck to do it, but you might be very grateful over the next few years that your overpaid, unrealistic, workshy, slave-driver editor was at least ahead of the curve.
• "they" have been saying stuff like that for years, my entire career in fact. and you're right, flashboy, editors get worried, overreact, tweak this and that, overhaul, change... and within six months everything is back to normal, or some semblance thereof. of course DURING the six months, it's sheer hell as everyone is redesigning and working overtime and bitching a lot.
• I've talked to my boss. More on that momentarily. In response to others: Yeah. I know first few jobs are hell. That's cool. But people here have negotiated good raises before. If I didn't think it was possible to GET it, I wouldn't ask. :) I've been documenting a lot, including other people's pay rate and industry standards, plus other raises that have happened in the newsroom. The Wired article is crap, though, because the primary source documents don't say what the article says they do...particularly about op/ed sections, which are one of the few sections young people seem to enjoy and think are pretty neat. The primary source article also mentions that every paper that's tried pandering to youth has failed miserably, leading several to lie about circ numbers. The primary article actually had a lot of better ideas. My boss and I talked about the primary source documents and actually decided to go kind of a different way. He's agreed with a lot of what I said...I wanted to focus on newspaper navigability and making it easier to search out and find articles of interest. He likes this idea a lot. My ideas are actually more in keeping with the spirit of what he wanted--he didn't want it to talk down, just to be more interesting and able to catch readers. I think my solution will do that better and more efficiently without the insurmountable obstacles of the completely local page.
• That's good to hear, musingmelpomene!
• Too hard for me. Get it? I'm tempted to guess sarcasm, but my confidence so escapes me these days. And I can't offer any advice because I have no real job/existence.
• And just in case ... the play on the word "lies." ... just in case.