Comments on: Jeff Jarvis, Please Return to Reality http://www.john-zhu.com/blog/2009/05/21/jeff-jarvis-please-return-to-reality/ Useful Resources for Some, Useless Rants for Others Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:25:55 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: More Revisionist Crap Concerning Journalists’ Salaries | Matters of Varying Insignificance http://www.john-zhu.com/blog/2009/05/21/jeff-jarvis-please-return-to-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-5158 More Revisionist Crap Concerning Journalists’ Salaries | Matters of Varying Insignificance Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:28:13 +0000 http://www.john-zhu.com/blog/?p=1150#comment-5158 [...] history about journalists in the past couple decades? First you have the whole thing about how journalists deserve to be paid less, and now, you see traces of that same “you had it too good; now it’s back to [...] [...] history about journalists in the past couple decades? First you have the whole thing about how journalists deserve to be paid less, and now, you see traces of that same “you had it too good; now it’s back to [...]

]]> By: John Zhu http://www.john-zhu.com/blog/2009/05/21/jeff-jarvis-please-return-to-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-5118 John Zhu Sat, 23 May 2009 21:08:36 +0000 http://www.john-zhu.com/blog/?p=1150#comment-5118 Thanks for stopping by and adding clarification, Jeff. If we are talking about the monetary value of journalism rather than the salaries of journalists, then yes, I agree that the market value for journalism is plummeting due to competition and the flooded marketplace of information. However, I don't think that the previous market value for journalism was "inflated". I think it was right for the time and circumstances, and I see the decreasing value now as the marketplace changing, not self-correcting. I see it as akin to paying $2,000 for a PC back in 1990 versus well under $1,000 now. Distributing information, like making computers, became much easier, thus increasing competition in the marketplace. Not every competitor in that marketplace puts out a good product, but the sheer number of competitors and the increasing ease of creating the product (be it computers or information) are enough to drive down the value of everyone's product. As for the journalists making six figures, I know they exist, but they are also much more the exception than the norm when placed in context of the entire journalism workforce, so I don't believe they should be used as the current standard when discussing how much journalists deserve to be paid. They may not deserve six figures, but what about the $30,000 median salary? There's a lot of room between a six-figure salary and what the typical journalist is making. Thanks for stopping by and adding clarification, Jeff. If we are talking about the monetary value of journalism rather than the salaries of journalists, then yes, I agree that the market value for journalism is plummeting due to competition and the flooded marketplace of information. However, I don't think that the previous market value for journalism was "inflated". I think it was right for the time and circumstances, and I see the decreasing value now as the marketplace changing, not self-correcting. I see it as akin to paying $2,000 for a PC back in 1990 versus well under $1,000 now. Distributing information, like making computers, became much easier, thus increasing competition in the marketplace. Not every competitor in that marketplace puts out a good product, but the sheer number of competitors and the increasing ease of creating the product (be it computers or information) are enough to drive down the value of everyone's product.

As for the journalists making six figures, I know they exist, but they are also much more the exception than the norm when placed in context of the entire journalism workforce, so I don't believe they should be used as the current standard when discussing how much journalists deserve to be paid. They may not deserve six figures, but what about the $30,000 median salary? There's a lot of room between a six-figure salary and what the typical journalist is making.

]]> By: Jeff Jarvis http://www.john-zhu.com/blog/2009/05/21/jeff-jarvis-please-return-to-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-5117 Jeff Jarvis Sat, 23 May 2009 18:27:38 +0000 http://www.john-zhu.com/blog/?p=1150#comment-5117 I shouldn't have put it in terms of "well" or "poorly" paid. My point is that the market value for journalism, for a journalist's work, likely won't be - or at least won't start - at the level where it was because journalists used to work for monopolistic money machines and now they will vie for advertising support in very competitive markets. As I said in my addendum, I hope journalists make bucketloads - and some have started (start with TechCrunch or Paidcontent). But the standard of the recent past - I did know metro journalists making six figures - is unlikely to be upheld in the new market. The discussion has been about upholding current standards. I harken back to a time when journalists were paid a lot less. I shouldn't have put it in terms of "well" or "poorly" paid. My point is that the market value for journalism, for a journalist's work, likely won't be – or at least won't start – at the level where it was because journalists used to work for monopolistic money machines and now they will vie for advertising support in very competitive markets. As I said in my addendum, I hope journalists make bucketloads – and some have started (start with TechCrunch or Paidcontent). But the standard of the recent past – I did know metro journalists making six figures – is unlikely to be upheld in the new market. The discussion has been about upholding current standards. I harken back to a time when journalists were paid a lot less.

]]>