Mourning the death of freelance journalism

Lately, I've been considering the possibility that for all intents and purposes, at least as a career track, freelance journalism is dead. Oh boy, what a revelation. I finally saw the light, yet it's only because I've been in denial. I mean this can't be true, right? The only journalists out there who aren't employed with a real salary (that's everyone in the field except for about 100 people these days) who can afford to freelance for independent media are the youngsters. These are people right out of college with no experience and minimal income needs. At least I hope they're out of college but with these rates you never know. Recently, I viewed an ad on Craigslist looking for business writers willing to work for, drum roll please, $5 dollars per article. That's less than the barristas at Starbucks earn! And way more frustrating and lonely!

These bottom-feeding freelance rates make me think twice about what I read online unless it comes from a blue-chip publication. There are just a ton of choices out there now for information and analysis, but the writing on many of these blogs leaves something to be desired. The analysis, whatever of it may exist, well that's another thing altogether. But if you're only willing or able to pay the price of a few beers for an article, then you get what you pay for: untrained writers, poorly-sourced information, a lack of objectivity and clarity, and a hangover the next day when you read the piece online.

What does this all mean for the future of journalism? I quiver in my boots. Given the fact that freelancers are absolutely required given the abundance of layoffs in the publishing industry over the course of the last several years, it doesn't bode well for the future of journalism overall if none of us can make a living doing it anymore.

My friend and writer colleague Fawn wrote about this in her blog: "These days, anyone semi-literate who has Internet access can start up a free blog and call himself or herself a writer, so the perceived value of being able to write and research is much lower. Which means people are less willing to pay for the good stuff (as opposed to celebrity-oriented crap). When I'm feeling cynical, I think that's because they prefer crap to substance. When I'm despairing, I think it's because they can no longer tell the difference."

I couldn't have said it better myself, Fawn. The problem is not so much that there isn't any quality left: there's plenty, and it's much more readily available than it used to be in the old days when you had to pay for the publication to arrive on your doorstep or in your mailbox. The problem is, this high quality content now available for free is also diluted with loads of low-quality drivel that one must weed through to find the treasure. If you do a search online for a given topic, it can take quite a bit of patience to find the article or site that actually suits your needs and original interests and lives up to any sort of journalistic standards. There's simply too much out there for most of us to easily filter, so we often pick what's at the top of the search engine results… for better or worse. We read it, and we move on, because we must.

Increasingly, even with the blue-chip pubs and sites, contents needs are enormous and ever-changing. There is no time to diligently research a topic through the course of a week or two for most journalists today. And even on the pages of respectable titles, one finds sloppiness, shallowness, smug undertones, and a general disregard for detail. Detail, humility, and diligence were the foundations of my journalism education at The American University, yet who's got time for that in this snarky digital world?

Another longtime writer colleague and friend, Howard, apparently thinks I am being a little bit dramatic (which wouldn't be out of character). "Once the media figures out how to financially support its efforts — and focuses on what its readers want — everything will balance out again. Perhaps we’ll see the rise of syndicates like the Associated Press again, which will likely support local journalists and stringers. But an unheralded facet of this shift is that, like the media, freelancers have to reinvent themselves too — they will need to figure out their own business model to survive in the “free agent” society.” Howard is always positive about his career, even though he blogs about what it's like to be middle-aged and cranky. (It's very funny, and you really should check it out)

I do hope you are right Howard, yet my business model to survive has been to exit the career of journalism. For the past few years I've been doing largely corporate-sponsored work, be it writing, editing or marketing and PR consulting. I suppose I should just get over it, continue to write for companies and marketing concerns (which mostly I enjoy) or else go into sales and just write for fun. I've got this blog, after all, not to mention many unfinished short stories. But I'm having a hard time stomaching the steady but certain unraveling of my former profession.

I'm still glad that I went into journalism and worked into the wee hours for magazines because it's helped me to be fearless, to ask tough questions, to investigate, and to keep pushing for the right answer and the right story. But where will the kids learn this stuff today?