Let me join the others who have thanked you for this
valuable resource. I am a young journalist who just graduated from a
top college having worked at the excellent student newspaper there for
four years and completed an internship at a well-regarded 200,000-circulation
paper. I've been told by many editors and respectable journalists that
I'm talented and should be able to land a job at a midsized paper.
ASK JOE
A QUESTION
|
To get your question answered on this page,
send
it to Joe here. Please include your full name in your message to Joe.
If you prefer that your surname not be published, please indicate
that. Sign up to receive Ask The Recruiter by
e-mail:
* Click
here (sent Monday-Friday at 8
a.m.) |
|
But in my job search, many midsized newspapers I looked at (I'm
talking 100,000, plus or minus 25,000) say they require three to five years of
experience at a professional newspaper. Indeed, in several follow-up
calls, editors couldn't look past my resume to see if my clips show
that I have what it takes to succeed at their paper now. This seems to
me to be a problem with many of our best newspapers -- newsrooms are
filled with baby boomers and lack talented young journalists to help
them better connect with my generation. I realize that experience is
valuable, but shouldn't editors be judging talent and not assigning
arbitrary length-of-time requirements to their reporting openings? Is
this a function of cutbacks in the industry as a whole?
Sam
I'm with you 100 percent.
A couple of things may be going on here. One may be that overworked
editors are setting up some minimal hurdles to park you somewhere as they deal with a flood of
applications. After all, length of experience is the easiest thing to
measure, it indicates that some of that early career training may have
already happened, and it is a first indicator that references will
be positive. A person with little track record is comparatively less
tested and will not have such detailed references.
The other thing to consider is whether these more experienced people
are just better. In your case, for example, I'd expect that you will
keep growing and that you'll be even better in three years than you are
right now. Some of the people these editors seem to favor may have been
-- three years ago -- exactly where you are now. They've just grown.
(Think of the people now facing buyouts as newspapers try to hire
less experienced, cheaper people. They feel cheated, as you do, when
someone less experienced gets the job. This knife cuts both ways.)
Professors and mentors don't lie when they say you can work at a
large newspaper. They are honestly impressed by your work and they know
you. But editors are not looking simply for someone who can make it.
They try to find the people who will do best.
You're going to have to find ways to break through the
minimum-service rule. One way is to meet some of these editors at their
papers, at conferences, seminars and the like. Another is to go after
journalistic specialties where there is less competition. And, of
course, you could always go to work at a good-quality smaller daily
they compete with and kick their butts.
You'll get out of that parking lot.
Coming Friday: He has a big job interview coming up in New York and asks whether he should take a cover letter to the interview.
