Perhaps the biggest reason why I am hesitant to jump headfirst into the a career track in independent media is the "money" factor. As much as the claims of "reporting for the sake of morality" are preached to me and are certainly something I consider, at the end of the day, a paycheck is vital to survival, especially in the larger field of communications where working 80 hours a week for $20,000 per year is not all that uncommon. And this is coming from someone who wants to be a reporter in Bangor, Maine upon graduation--I've already accepted I'm not going to make more than $30K a year for my first few years out of school. Putting my faith in an independent news outlet that is dependent on a handful of fickle donors? Even riskier endeavor.
I think at the end of the day, though, all media outlets have to start somewhere and certainly having the backing of well-known donors is one way to go. Complimented with sponsored events like the "DreamGirls" revival or concerts and dinners, money can most certainly be raised; more than that, if marketed correctly, the name of the independent media organization can spread, hopefully attracting more donors. At the end of the day, that's where initial revenue must be spent: getting the word out there in order to gain more backers and readers. There's no point in continuously hiring more and more reporters if no one is reading the paper/listening to the show. In my opinion, it's more beneficial to have a small, dedicated group of reporters who can easily accomplish--given contemporary technology--the same amount of work as a group with more people. Saving the money in paying reporters will pay off when advertising brings in more donors and, the "7%" of funding at independent media outlets, consistent membership.
Although not necessarily a contemporary example, let's examine San Francisco's KPFA radio station. It began with a small, dedicated group led by Lew Hill and 39 listeners. But because this dedicated group put out a good product, it gained a dedicated following... who then backed the station when it nearly went under. The station was then able to expand its following, resulting in more funding, which then allowed for them to THEN expand their content and the number of shows they featured.
Like gaining membership, funding is a process--and as much as it is tempting to "cut to the finish line" and get a few, very wealthy backers, as Jodi Enda points out in "Staying Alive," "foundations and rich people can be fickle." In the short term, it is a start. But these people cannot be leaned on forever, unless independent media groups hope to simply move from one project to the next as soon as one fades away.
Two quick asides: first, I disagreed with Enda's point of how "journalists are uncomfortable asking for money." Certainly, journalism has the reputation of being a "noble profession" in which ethics and "doing the right thing" tump monetary rewards, but, at the same time, journalists should never be afraid to ask any question; asking questions is what makes good reporters. With being "noble" also comes being, contrary to what many may believe, pretty street savvy, and, thus, a smart journalist who is good at FRAMING questions, will know how to ask for money without directly "asking for money."
Additionally, I found the number of colleges with "investigative reporting units" to be very intriguing. Personally, I think these institutions are just a way for independent media outlets to arise with full monetary backing, but it definitely is a smart concept to go to the future of journalism as opposed to trying to compete with the "big boys" of CNN, MSNBC, etc. from the get-go.
No comments:
Post a Comment