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?

Contributed Content: A Good or Bad Trend for Media?

I've been a professional writer since 1993, when I got my first editorial job at a small
local newspaper in Colorado. Since then I've worked in staff roles at trade and business magazines such as CIO and The Industry Standard, and as a freelancer for websites, magazines and companies. I also had a stint at Microsoft in a content role. So I've been on both sides of the fence: journalism and corporate marketing. In the last few years I've been almost strictly corporate, writing white papers and articles for corporate-sponsored sites and doing some PR. Lately, there's been some brewing debate about the concept of corporate-contributed content.

Some people think the idea of allowing executives and other experts from industry write for independent media is a disturbing denigration of the field of journalism. Others say that it's simply the direction content is heading now -- with bloggers becoming journalists, journalists becoming bloggers, and everyone with something to say actively contributing to the broader bucket of knowledge that we consume every day from social media, traditional media, and corporate-sponsored sites.

I'm in the middle here. First of all, whether they will admit it or not, newspaper and magazine editors need content. The current ad-driven revenue models cannot support large editorial staffs any longer, nor even freelancers; I know this firsthand, since freelance rates have plummeted drastically over the past few years. If a news-oriented, relevant article idea is submitted, that fits a current need, editors are much more inclined to take it these days if they trust the source. The media organizations accepting contributed content are not just small trade rags, but top-tier publications such as Fortune and BusinessWeek.

But the media needs good content— discussions that are well-researched, cogent, objective, and provide fresh insights and value to readers. As long as that criteria is met -- I don't see the problem with an executive writing a blog post for a traditional media site. In the few occasions that I have helped write such articles of late, the company nor its products are mentioned in the article. And often, such pieces are clearly labeled as a viewpoint piece.

Now you still might disagree: independent authors are the only ones worthy of writing for independent media. Yet the tide is changing: economics are demanding the acquisition of cheaper forms of content. This is an opportunity, in my mind, for both media sites and companies. For media: an occasional contributed article is a way to expand editorial coverage on tight budgets with a fresh industry-driven viewpoint that a journalist can’t always convey. For companies: this is an opportunity to express your (hopefully respectable) opinions and drive thought leadership among your peers, colleagues and customers.

Of course there's a danger here: use of such articles requires, perhaps, more stringent editorial policies to weed out people with an agenda versus those offering a thoughtful discussion. And most would agree that the large majority of articles from independent media should still come from journalists, not companies. Story ideas and execution must be held to the same level of rigor, if not more, of that of the independent journalist. And it must be distinctly clear in the article credits who penned the piece.

If managed properly, corporate-written content is not evidence of the field of journalism rapidly going downhill into the dregs of promotional drivel. Many freelance writers with pedigreed backgrounds, in fact, write regularly for corporations along with their journalism pieces—because they must, to survive. On the same token, many news organizations will have to consider free, contributed, yet high-quality content from both leaders and industry to "fill the pages" so to speak.

But that's just my view. What's yours?