The New York Times today had an article in the business section about journalists currently embedded in political campaigns (the web version is parred down). With the election season ending tomorrow, most of those journalists will find their services no longer needed.
Some will go back to freelance work, from whence they came, but many will find that the networks or newspapers who employed them have found ways to get by without. Newspapers especially, facing harder economic times than their TV counterparts, will be hard pressed to find reasons to keep on formerly embedded reporters.
I actually really feel for these journalists. It's kind of like serving a tour of duty overseas as a career miltary man, only to find yourself laid-off when the war is over. Or like suddenly going from full-time employment to a temp in your industry. Reporters embedded in a campaign live on the road. The Times mentioned Adam Aigner-Treworgy, who basically lived out of a suitcase after being embedded by NBC in the McCain campaign. He'll return to his mom's house, where he left his car packed with all of the belongings he couldn't sell on Craigslist, and have to start looking for a new job.
I think the saddest part is that many of these journalists did the thankless work of covering all the boring campaign stops that yielded no newsworthy stories, no "clinging to guns and religion" soundbites, and no "I can see Russia from my house" dumb moments. Someone had to do it, because that's the watchdog aspect of journalism.
You'd really have to read the article to get a feel for the trenches work done by these journalists and to appreciate what I consider a sacrifice on their part, though it be a labor of love. My point is that journalists deserve jobs. They're as much public servants as any diplomat, social worker, police officer or teacher. That role is sometimes downplayed because of the seemingly glamorous side of journalism, but the sacrifices of the journalist are sacrifices nonetheless. Reporters face different threats than cops, but I think it's an issue of the widow's mite; they're giving what they have to give.
I think this goes back to what we discussed today in class about conscience in the workplace. I think it takes conscience to persue true journalism in the first place, but the ethics of journalism goes beyond that. Part of it is a work ethic, dedicating time and sacrificing much to report the news. I think that's why the Times story struck a chord with me-- we owe a lot to journalists, sometimes more than they get in return. Maybe it's melodramatic, but think about it for a while and let me know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It is pretty sad how some political journalists live such a nomadic existence--the craft is such that it leaves you pretty insecure as far as jobs and finances go. Sometimes it feels hard to progress within the profession because you don't get promoted too often and most of your work is behind the scenes. But something about snooping around and digging up dirt is just thrilling, don't you think?
I think most everyone would agree that what the journalists did was a service to the country and their joblessness is a negative reflection on our society. But moving beyond a collective "I'm sorry," who's job is it then to give them the jobs? The government or the economy?
Post a Comment