Professor John Russial

by John Russial

Young people entering journalism today lack ambition. They're more interested in starting salary, pay raises and vacations than they are in careful, thorough reporting. They know little about current events and less of history. They're glamour-seekers. They fancy themselves writers, but they can't even spell.

That indictment of “today's” young journalists was actually issued in 1949 by some of the nation's managing editors in an Editor & Publisher report. The graybeards raised similar concerns in 1975, about the time I entered the newspaper business.

And today, when my students are starting their careers, some veteran editors apparently feel the way their counterparts did a half-century ago. Every generation of journalists believes the next is demonstrably worse, marginally competent at best, and most likely going to hell in a handbasket because the newcomers lack the “fire-in-the-belly” that ignited the veterans' journalistic passion. They've all been wrong.

Are journalists entering the field today really worse than their predecessors? The answer today, as it was a half-century ago, is both yes and no. And now, as then, it's the wrong question.\

What we really should be asking is: How are new journalists different from the old? What does that tell us about how society, culture—and journalism—have changed? And is there reason for hope that today's generation will contribute at least as much as the last one did?

Consider a few specifics:

Today's budding journalists, on average, are probably less well-read than their predecessors. No surprise there. They grew up on television, not books, and, if readership surveys are accurate, certainly not on newspapers.

But they know a few things that are fundamental to the successful practice of journalism in a changing world.

Many journalists of a generation ago were afraid of computers and viewed their entry into newsrooms with suspicion, if not alarm. Few understood the importance of databases and how to mine their riches through computer-assisted reporting.

Because today's novices have no fear of computers, many can produce journalism that was beyond the reach of most in my generation. One example is a series of articles by David Ryan, a recent graduate of the University of Oregon. Ryan recently analyzed gun-record databases to produce a series detailing the dramatic growth of concealed weapons permits in a northeastern Oregon community.

Are they more or less skilled than their predecessors were? That too may be the wrong question. The craft has changed and the tools are dramatically different.

Page makeup, for example, is now done in the newsroom by journalists working with computers, not in the back shop by production workers wrestling with hot lead, as it was when I began my career. Today's new journalists know how to use these new tools, and this knowledge makes them more marketable. They know that reporting and editing skills are important, as always, but they also understand how to use computers to design pages, create graphics, edit photos and produce material for the web. Today's entering journalists know more about some aspects of their craft than we knew as rookies—and probably less about others. But they're eager to learn.

Are today's journalists blatant careerists—more interested in the next step up than in loyalty to a news organization and its community? More so, perhaps, than their predecessors, but how much more is not clear. Journalists have long had one eye on the typewriter (or the keyboard) and the other on the door. If there is an attitude change, it's that lifestyle is more important to many in this generation. But this is no surprise.

Managers in all sorts of businesses are finding the same thing. Some have acknowledged the cultural shift by adjusting schedules, policies and perks. Newspapers run stories about these trends but fail to realize that their own newcomers are part of the same generation.

Today's novices face other pressures. They are entering a field that is notorious for low starting pay, for layoffs and hiring freezes, and for closing not-quite-profitable-enough operations. How can we ensure that entering journalists remain dedicated in this environment? That's a good question.

When I see so many bright students who have a passion for journalism choosing our field instead of easier and more lucrative professions, I am encouraged. I share the optimism of Mencken, who cast his eye on newspapers in 1925 and said: "[S]ooner or later the youngsters will get on top. When they do, there will be an immense improvement in American journalism."

One more thing. Can today's journalists spell? No. Neither could their bosses.

—This article originally appeared in Newsday