Q: With a bit of luck, and good timing, I was offered a job as an entry-level reporter at a 7,000-circulation daily newspaper. But I'm starting to wonder if it was good luck or bad luck.
I had a bachelor's degree in international studies, and virtually no experience in writing except my blog. I got the job with a grand total of three clips - the only three I had ever published.
I have been at this paper for about two months, and now I can see why my managing editor was so eager to fill the position. He is a beast who has gone through 20 reporters in the last five years. When he hired me, two of his three staff reporters had just left.
Already I want to look for a job at another paper. I love reporting and I want to continue to improve as a journalist, but I fear that I am developing bad habits at this paper and compromising my professional integrity.
Should I stay at this paper just to prove that I am dedicated to this work even when I am being verbally abused and treated like a writing slave? I'm afraid that if I start looking for another newspaper job with only two month's experience, editors will not even consider my application.
Is two months enough? How about six months? Is a year the bare-minimum experience I need under my belt before moving on to another, preferably more professional paper?
Writing Slave
A: You shouldn't have to work like this and yet, you do, for now. You have a good picture of where you are and that you were, in fact, lucky to get a job with just three clips.
Few papers would hire you after two months on the job, but they might start looking at you after six.
Whatever you do, check out your next paper better and make sure it is one where you can stay for a couple years. Editors will forgive a short tenure if it is followed by a longer one. We get twitchy when we see a string of short stints.
