New J-Forums: 'Lock Up Your Curmudgeons and Children'

A new forum for, yes, young twentysomething journalists:

TwentySomethingJournalist: The Changing Face of the News Business

Hope this gets the attention it deserves. Also, for the new media set: Wired Journalists

Diary Of An Unemployed Young Journalist: An Open Letter To Entry-Level Journalism Jobs Everywhere

Dear entry-level jobs ("ELJ"),

Where have you been?

I've been looking everywhere, virtually since the day I got my bachelor's degree in journalism from a reputable university. But I haven't been able to find you -- not on my university jobs database, not on New York Times Company Careers, not on Dow Jones Careers, nor Hearst Publications, Conde Nast, Time Inc., Rodale, Bauer, Hachette, Bonnier, Village Voice Media, News Corp., New York Observer, Manhattan Media, Gawker Media, CBS, NBC, ABC, Folio Jobs, Poynter.org, Mediabistro Jobs, Ed2010 WhisperJobs, Monster, Careerbuilder -- even the smaller companies of publications like New York, Interview, Radar and so forth.

That's newspapers, magazines, broadcast and online.

I feel like I've looked everywhere for you, ELJ. But I can't find you.

I've certainly tried my best to catch your attention. I thought my bachelor's journalism degree in New York wasn't enough, so I went to the top journalism school in the country and got a master's degree in New York, too.

You know, they don't really make journalism degrees any higher than that, ELJ.

Along the way, I interned at one of the Top 10 newspapers in the U.S. and three national monthly magazines, all under big companies (some might call them the "Big 3" of publishing). Everybody I know said internships were the big way in, so I went and did five.

I'm pretty lucky to have gone to school in this town. Wouldn't you say, ELJ?

But where are you when I need you?

Since I'm not receiving any handouts from dear old Mom and Dad -- especially with regard to the price of grad school and the incredible price of rent in this city, the biggest and most expensive in the U.S. -- I've even done some freelancing, some for notable publications in this town. It used to be a fun side gig, but when I'm depending on that $400 check that comes every couple of months, that's no good, right?

After all, every young journalist needs clips, right?

And hey -- my writing made the cover of a small national monthly magazine three times this year -- did you see, ELJ?

If you did, I wish I knew. Because I can't seem to find you.

Be well-rounded, they said. Be web-savvy, they said. Be flexible, be cheery, and most of all, be professional. Everyone loves a hard worker.

Well, I practiced my hard news stories. Inverted pyramid, soundbite quotes and all that. I've never even had a correction run for one of my pieces.

Then I edited stories by other people. I tried my hand at science journalism, technology journalism, business journalism, arts and entertainment, fashion -- even religion reporting. I challenged myself to see if I could cover everything equally as well, be it short news pieces, briefs, or full-on Rolling Stone-style profile features.

I researched. I fact-checked. I copy edited. I even tried blogging, both for the snarky and staid.

Then I went and learned Photoshop and InDesign and Illustrator and Dreamweaver. I learned how to shoot and edit video and photos. I practiced how to make webpages -- I even set one up for myself. And -- get this -- I learned Adobe Flash this year. How cool is that?

I trained my eye on my resume -- cleaned it up, made it classy, cut the junk. I practiced writing cover letters. I networked -- introduced myself to people, showed them my website, LinkedIn with them.

If you Google me these days, it's a trove of love letters to you, ELJ.

Then, when the time came to work in this big town, center of technology and media and finance and basically everything, I applied like a madman. I started slow, to test the waters, but when time started passing, I quickened the pace.

Editorial assistant jobs, assistant editor jobs, news assistant jobs, beat reporter jobs, online editor jobs, multimedia producer jobs, administrative assistant jobs -- I went after them all. And why not? Everyone told me it'd be a lot easier to find you if I had more feathers in my cap.

You must be allergic to feathers, though, ELJ. I can't seem to find you.

I asked my friends for openings at their companies, only to hear that they might be fired soon because of the economy. I asked my mentors for openings at their companies, but most couldn't find anything. Romenesko keeps saying all the positions for senior staffers were being cut in lieu of openings for young upstarts like me. The new generation of do-it-all journalists. But every time I search for jobs, how come the only ones open are for "senior editor" or "deputy page one editor"?

And gee whiz, there are a lot of internships available. But I think five is where I draw the line, ELJ.

Besides that, I just see freelance gigs that guarantee a lot of wasted time for little reward, or a lot of jobs that require three years of experience. But see, that's what I'm looking for.

ELJ, I'm looking for you.

I even bought a snazzy navy suit for the occasion. Your receptionist, "informational interview," said I look nice and I'm superbly qualified, but she said she can't find you, either.

Must be the economy. Must be the time of year. But let me tell you -- if there's one thing I've got, ELJ, it's information. Now I just need to find you.

I'm getting worried now. Rent's due soon, and $900 doesn't sound "stabilized" when you're not making anything. Who am I kidding -- it sounds like a lot to you too, doesn't it, ELJ?

Everyone says I should move out of the city. But why? I made so many professional connections here. And if everyone's moving out, and those jobs elsewhere are disappearing, who's left anyway?

I'm worried, ELJ. I can't find you. Where are you?

Sincerely,
An Unemployed Young Journalist

Is This Low Wage Just Too Low?

A great discussion is going on over at Joe Grimm's "Ask the Recruiter" column at Poynter.org...

A reader's question: "Is This Low Wage Just Too Low?"

I am a recent journalism graduate and have been looking for a job since before graduation. After having been rejected from several jobs already I'm a bit down in spirits. The upside, though, is that really none of the jobs I've been rejected for are perfectly down my aisle -- they're not distinctly print journalism, which is what I'm looking for.

Finally, I've found an opening at a local weekly paper where I could be covering the education beat as well as some local government...it's a very small operation...I'd get a lot of clips and also have the chance to do page layout and headline writing, as well as some Web site management...but it doesn't offer health insurance.

I'm expecting an offer from the paper this week, but the pay rate that the editor threw out in the interview was $9.50 an hour. I had crunched $10 to $12 an hour before I went in to see if I could make my budget work, and $10 was the absolute least I could do. That didn't account for having to pay for my own insurance, which I absolutely cannot do without.

Reader reactions and discussion, including some by yours truly, in the feedback and comments.

How The New York Times Screwed Up An Easy Trend Story

Have you read Cara Buckley's piece in The New York Times entitled, "Starting Salaries but New York Tastes"?

Exactly what was the point of that article?

If you haven't read it, a quick recap by way of an extended nut graf:

Having one’s mother mail rotating boxes of old clothing is just one of the myriad ways that young newcomers to the city of a certain income — that is, those who are neither investment bankers nor being floated by their parents — manage to live the kind of lives they want in New York. Every year around this time, tens of thousands of postcollegiate people in their 20s flood the city despite its soaring expenses. They are high on ambition, meager of budget and endlessly creative when it comes to making ends meet.

Some tactics have long been chronicled: sharing tiny apartments with strangers. Sharing those apartments with eight strangers. Eating cheap lunches and skipping dinners — not just to save money, but so that drinks pack more of a punch and fewer need be consumed.

But there are smaller measures, no less ingenious, that round out the lifestyle. These young people sneak flasks of vodka into bars, flirt their way into clubs, sublet their walk-in closets, finagle their way into open-bar parties and put off haircuts until they visit their hometowns, even if those hometowns are thousands of miles away.

In general, the article is interesting. As New York's prices get higher, and the economy crisis reaches deeper, the young professionals that move to the city post-Sex and the City absolutely have trouble making ends meet. When high expectations meet low salaries, it's cause for any interesting article in the Metro section.

But hold on, just one second: this article is indicative of truly poor news judgment.

Why?

Because it allows for a local trend story that isn't even-handed. And as all journalists know, you're supposed to interview all sides of a story.

In the article, Buckley uses characters/sources that are all living beyond their means in a decidedly unequal way: notably, putting extremely overpriced drinks, habits or digs in Manhattan's most sought-after neighborhoods above basic daily nutrition. While that's an interesting and notable trend, there's not a single mention of those unsupported young professionals who do the opposite -- live within their means to get ahead.

"But wait one second!" you say. "The Times runs a story like that all the time! This story was a breath of fresh air, a new take on a perpetual phenomenon!"

That's true. But without a mention of the other side of a trend, a story about it shouldn't run.

What's more, the story doesn't even make use of comparable subjects: all of the sources in the article live in coveted neighborhoods of the young: Chelsea, West Village, downtown Brooklyn, Williamsburg. All of them profess having problems eating well-balanced meals. But guys like Peter Naddeo, a $15-an-hour musician, just can't be compared with Allison Mooney, a publicist in the West Village, or Adam Liebsohn, a communications strategist who makes $60,000 a year and lives in the East Village but finds it impossible to pay for a broadband connection. Some find it hard to eat out on a $3.50 plate of rice and beans.

Ever hear of the supermarket?

As an editor, I look at this group and I see problems: True, all the sources are on their own financially, but where are the people making $10 an hour or less, without college education or recently graduated and no longer allowed to live on loan checks? I know several people who pay less than $600 a month (far less than some of the rents mentioned in this article) and make ends meet freelancing -- as in, no full-time job, no benefits, no health insurance.

So to an editor's eye -- one that knows New York -- I ask: with all of these reporting holes, why?

Or more appropriately: so what?

To me, running an article like this is like running a piece on homeless people who drink away their money or use it on drugs. Without the article addressing the greater problem of, say, drug laws or the psychological problems of alcohol dependency, the article is one big, "so what?"

I feel the same way about this piece. It's as if the Times didn't want to pass judgment on the ridiculous fact that many of the sources in this piece are acting irrationally (to boot, without looking at why). So in avoiding showing the other (arguably more rational) side and putting it all into perspective -- which is what a good article should do, of course -- they condoned an article to run that was neither balanced nor fair.

Though the nut graf is to the point, it promises the wrong point in the words ahead. It is misleading and written for a different article. To reference a specific example, we see that this article is supposed to be about even better ways that poor young professionals manage living in such a high-priced city:

They are high on ambition, meager of budget and endlessly creative when it comes to making ends meet. (emphasis added)

But for many of the sources in this article, there was no creativity involved in making ends meet. For many, living and "making ends meet" was simply living extravagantly and making the wrong kinds of sacrifices to zero out the budget. Who cares how creative a person on a limited budget must be to make ends meet when that person has habits so easily beyond their means financially?

Maybe it wouldn't be so hard for a communications strategist pulling in 60K a year to afford broadband internet connectivity if he didn't live in such a high-priced real-estate area.

The effect the article leaves on its readers is also problematic. For an article that made such a point to note that these young professionals were not relying on trust funds or parents for additional income, it wildly misconstrues the overall, non-supported young professional population as irrational spenders -- and without figures, data, reasonable comparison or anything to round out the trend, it's a misleading, failed piece.

And for that, I say, go back out there and keep reporting.

How Much Will I Make In Journalism?

$32,250.

That's the starting salary in journalism, according to CNN/CareerBuilder.

Wanna Be A Journalist? Prepare For The Online Sweatshop.

The New York Times recently published an article about what new, young, 'Net-savvy journalists face in the industry today: complete web exploitation.

A growing work force of home-office laborers and entrepreneurs, armed with computers and smartphones and wired to the hilt, are toiling under great physical and emotional stress created by the around-the-clock Internet economy that demands a constant stream of news and comment.

Of course, the bloggers can work elsewhere, and they profess a love of the nonstop action and perhaps the chance to create a global media outlet without a major up-front investment. At the same time, some are starting to wonder if something has gone very wrong. In the last few months, two among their ranks have died suddenly.

A young friend of mine is featured as one of these new digital sweatshop employees, so this wasn't news to me. But I (and the Times, apparently) find it to be a growing trend among up-and-coming journalists who know their way around a computer.

"Let 'em blog on the website," a young intern hopes to hear at the Anytown Daily News or National Monthly Magazine. And why not? It's a great way to get clips, and the publication's less-than-Web-savvy staff get to avoid learning anything more about the mysterious Internet, thus keeping their jobs secure. But then the abuse begins.

"Can we put an original picture up with that?" the editor asks. "Can we move that text over here?" "Can't we add a video to that? How about some of that flashy Flash stuff? The big boss really loves that online magic stuff, and will really like this at the meeting today," the editor says, thinking of that raise for "managing the Website." But without any familiarity of how long it takes to do such things -- such as create interactives, log and capture video, and make sure it's all perfect before posting to the Web -- the editor has made our lowly, new, tech-savvy journalist an overworked, underpaid, stressed-out multimedia producer.

And that's where the industry model is right now -- take a look at your favorite blogs. Do a little Google search on the ones that update at a rapid clip. Guess who's manning the keyboard? (Here's a hint: It's not Malcolm Gladwell.)

So when the Times pointed this phenomenon out, it hit the Web by storm. But anyone who knows anyone at Nick Denton's Gawker Media or any competing online-only startup knows that the digital sweatshop has been around for years.

"Well, when I was a young journalist, I had to pay my dues too!" the old editor would say. And that's true -- but something tells me that wasn't on a 24/7/365 publishing cycle.

Tech-savvy readers: Have you been taken advantage of? Let us know anonymously (or not!) in the comments.

Advice For Young Journalists, Or How Not To Be An Angry Journalist

The voice behind AngryJournalist.com has some advice for young journalism grads, and since so many young journalists visit this blog, I thought it was worth summarizing here:

1. Get real about your situation. "You might think you can take a job that pays less than $30,000 a year, but can you really? Do the math."

2. Know the business and the industry. "Knowing the business and industry means realizing the broader challenges journalism as a whole is facing."

3. Don't be stupid. "You’re out of excuses because you have the Internet."

4. Think of yourself as a brand. "The idea is you want your employer to Google your name, find your site and say 'damn, I want to hire this youngblood.' "

5. Stop blaming others. "When you’re in a job interview, you can be one of two people. You can say, 'Well, we didn’t have blogs at our college paper,' or you can say, 'We didn’t have blogs at my paper, so I decided to leave and create my own publishing network on campus.' Which candidate would you hire?"

6. Know where you want to work. "This is your first job, not your last. Where can you go from here?"

7. Don't limit yourself. "It’s not the end of the world if you don’t get a newspaper job."

Sage advice.

Being A Young Journalist Is Like Living In A War

In celebration of my starting a side project writing tech for The Huffington Post, I'm posting on a subject that one of my fellow writers covered in a different section of the site: It's a Confusing Moment To Be a Young Journalist.

Ain't that the truth.

Occidental College research fellow and journalist in residence Steven Barrie-Anthony, a mere three years older than yours truly, says despite the confusion (and all that hubbub about the Internet), the young journalist won't complain.

"I am outraged by corporate owners who, with little understanding of how journalism works...approach the uncertain future with their eyes strictly on the bottom line...this is clearly the worst of times. On the other hand, I sometimes find myself delighted by all this chaos and ferment."

"Could this be - dare I say it - the best of times?"

With his commentary, he invites other reporters to weigh in: Reporters of the LA Weekly, LA Times, Village Voice, and others. Some great commentary from old and young journalists alike follows his post.

So I thought it would be appropriate for The Editorialiste to take a whack at it.

Allow me to start by saying that I am not one of those people that always thought they would be a journalist. I found no interest in the profession until I got to college, where a great political journalism course lit up my pen and sparked everything.

In his post, Barrie-Anthony completely painted an accurate picture of the times, at least for us in our 20s, and maybe everyone else, too. In my own experience, I am constantly barraged with conflicting advice and concern from many of my colleagues, friends and mentors.

Some say journalism is bunk.

Some are amused.

Some find it noble.

Some think journalism school is $60,000 down the drain.

Some think it's opportunity.

Some think it's a poor profession.

Some think we should just be doctors or lawyers.

Some think it's a lot of work.

Some think we're spoiled, plugged-in brats.

Some think we're an exciting digital generation.

Some don't know what to think.

And there's truth in it all, to some degree. But if I had to say something about all this, what would I say, besides everything I've already said on this very blog?

First I'd say that Kathleen Nye Flynn, 25-year-old reporter for the Los Angeles Downtown News, got it right: "Call me blind or stupid, but I can't give up on something that I have so much invested in."

It's that kind of passion that will change everything, and it's that kind of passion that the ones who really care to succeed are fueled by. Right now, I'm strung out by my teeth in the most expensive city in the nation, cobbling together freelance assignments and a day job to do what I want to do. If I didn't have that passion, I'd probably be living at home (which, financial relief aside, is not something I consider a help to my attempted career trajectory).

Tom Brokaw called those WW2 G.I.s the 'Greatest Generation' because they fought in a great war. And call me on being ridiculous, but in this latest incarnation of the war on journalism -- sometimes partially a civil war, so maybe the war of journalism -- I think the multi-talented, writer-producer-webmasters that come out on top are really gonna change the way things are done, rooted in the old. Call us whatever you want, but we're definitely a generation worth naming.

That's what I think. What do you?

Why We Need Journalism School Rankings

I knew this post would be controversial.

Why wouldn't it be? Ranking colleges and universities has been under fire for years, a convoluted and unnecessarily complex way of measuring a qualitative quality quantitatively. University presidents despise them. Incoming students feed on them. Rankings are seen as the parasite latched onto the Ivory Tower, turning the high-fidelity value of an institution down to a spotty, low-fi MP3 of the real deal.

So why on earth would I suggest to start ranking journalism schools?

Because most journalism schools aren't visible on a national scale.

In a recent, small study posted on Journalism.org, journalism students expressed confidence in their chosen profession, despite its apparent ongoing transformation. And I continue to hear that the popularity of studying journalism in school is on the rise. Hell, the journalism department of my alma mater, NYU, recently moved into an expansive, comprehensive new space next to the headquarters of the once-great Village Voice, complete with a full newsroom, broadcast studio, radio studio, and so on.

Clearly the demand is high. But if you're a student looking to go into journalism, there aren't too many resources to turn to.

An aspiring j-school kid might ask: Which journalism school offers what? Which are better? Where do graduates end up? And what's the difference between communications, mass media and just plain journalism?

If he or she goes and picks up the U.S. News & World Report's America's Best Graduate Schools 2008, they'll find nary a mention of journalism schools among entries for business, law, medicine, engineering, education, science, humanities, fine arts and even library studies. In fact, you have to go back more than a decade to find journalism rankings in USN&WR.

What good are old rankings?

If you are interested in journalism school, you want to get a general sense of the playing field. Most journalists speak highly of their alma mater, so that's not exactly helpful for comparison. Message boards are full of self-proclaimed gurus. And journalism school websites are as full of fluff as those of their parent universities.

So where does the future j-school kid turn?

Using Google, the industrious applicant might find that Columbia, Medill (Northwestern), and Missouri fight for the top journalism honors ("the big three," some like to say). But what about the rest? What about journalism schools at Minnesota? Syracuse? Arizona State? Ball State? Michigan State? Temple? Ohio State? NYU?

Where do they fall?

Before I get a deluge of angry comments, I understand that great journalists can come from "no-name" schools and unethical duds can come from great ones. I'd also like to say that I support the notion that rankings should be released in groups and not single entries (strata, as opposed to a linear order). After all, when colleges are ranked, what distinguishes Princeton from Harvard? Penn State from Maryland? Ignoring all the arguments about the calculation methods for a moment, individual rankings are misleading just by the nature that one entry can follow another by virtue of statistically insignificant differences.

So really, there are two reasons why we need journalism schools to be ranked: First, because many of these schools need visibility beyond their own local spheres (and with an increase in applicants, would in turn benefit from the cash influx); second, because there's a huge difference between the new City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism and the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School of Communication. Yet few people outside the journalism world can distinguish between a school that stresses reporting spot news and one that stresses studying, say, linguistics (because journalism might be a small subset of communication, but certainly not the other way around). But this distinction, as well as the smaller distinction of which school is better at creating newspaper editors than magazine writers or broadcast news anchors, is incredibly important to the aspiring journalism student.

By what measure can we rank these journalism schools? Difficult to say, although I would suggest that we must take note as to who's got a better handle on broadcast, print, new media, radio (which as categories themselves are changing) and so on (maybe publishing, press relations, etc.)

We might want to evaluate the following:

--Facilities
--Length of program
--Student Publications (number or quality, etc.)
--Graduation Rate/Retention
--Placement within X time from graduation
--Selectivity
--GRE score
--Alumni giving rank
--Student/faculty ratio
--Value (or some sort of figure that incorporates the cost of tuition)
--Town/gown relations (maybe not 'town,' but more 'local media')

Of course, these are only initial suggestions. But just seeing journalism schools side-by-side who would otherwise not be compared would expose more applicants to more schools -- and make us compare schools that usually keep to themselves.

The purpose of all this is to strengthen the fragmented network of journalism schools and identity as a whole, as well as encourage a little competition.We're a small bunch -- why aren't we keeping track of ourselves? Why must we rely on word of mouth? And aren't we all trying to get jobs at the same publications?

What if someone who lives in Manhattan wants to attend the University of Montana's School of Journalism? No one's stopping them -- except for the fact that few people know that Montana has their own j-school. I certainly didn't. Doesn't that pique your interest?

I'm told time and time again that Joseph Pulitzer wanted journalism to be as professional and respectable a vocation as law, medicine or business. So why are we left off the page by one of our own publications?

"The Graduates" Fails To Make The Grade

Yesterday, the New York Times launched a new opinion blog, "The Graduates," intended to relay the fears of eight college seniors facing the future. I think it's the best idea I've seen in The Times in awhile - but I think it's the worst execution I've seen in the Times in that same period of time.

There are two primary reasons why "The Graduates" is different from the other Times blogs: first, it's written by eight students who (to my knowledge) are not employed or paid by The Times; second, it's written by eight people presumably under age 25. This combination of citizen journalism and classic MSM journalism is highly unusual for the Gray Lady, but very cool nonetheless.

Not surprisingly, all eight graduates are journalism or communications majorswrite for the campus newspaper: Alice Mathias is a columnist at Dartmouth, Amber Wilson is an editor at Dillar, Anna Weggel is an editor at the University of Minnesota, Juliet Moser is a columnist at George Washington, Michael Erler is a columnist at San Diego State, Missy Kurzweil is a columnist at Cornell, Travis Mitchell is a columnist at Texas A&M and Tyler Graf is an editor at the University of Oregon.

So when I read Ms. Mathias's first post yesterday, in which she proclaimed that she was "magically reporting for a not-student-run news organization from the trenches" of her last semester at Dartmouth and mentioned that "on June 10th this [safe, town-sized] bubble is scheduled to burst, at which point, along with (most of) the class of 2007, [she] will be catapulted into adulthood," I couldn't help but think:

Since when aren't you an adult? Don't you have real concerns?

Are you really running around Hanover as a child with an Ivy diaper?

I imagine Ms. Mathias is not, but something still struck me as odd about her post: Though written eloquently, the content was not at all telling of her fears. In fact, there weren't really any hard facts or anecdotes in the whole thing. Ms. Mathias, it seems, was merely a self-appointed mouthpiece for her class and generation, worried about who will be president and what we're going to do with our lives.

"What color is your parachute?"
"I don't know, I'm too busy crushing for Barack Obama."

So what, then, was the point of this blog? Tell me about the kid who struggled through Dartmouth because he didn't get enough financial aid. Tell me about the kid whose parents divorced months before his graduation. Tell me about the kid who is $10,000 in credit card debt and $100,000 in debt from Sallie Mae federal loans. Tell me about the kid who is scrambling to get her sprained knee and three cavities taken care of because his Mom just lost her job and she's without medical or dental insurance upon graduation.

You can tell me about the dreams of a college graduate, but tell me some reality, too. Otherwise, what's the point?

Though there are only two posts on the blog so far - Ms. Mathias's and today's post by Mr. Mitchell - both convey a less-than-grounded approach to breaking out and actually working as a journalist (or anything else, for that matter). In her post, Ms. Mathias concerns herself with a childhood game she used to play that would "forecast" what life she was destined to live. Mr. Mitchell's post is equally as rose-tinted, as if it were written by an elementary school child with a fantastic grasp of vocabulary. Though many of their sentences start of with a wide-sweeping negative proclamation like "only a few will be prepared" or "if my classmates and I are going to live forever," there isn't any real discussion of the real difficulties each student will have when they graduate.

Trust fund babies as an exception - and they should be, even if it is The Times - what about health insurance? How about a job? Are you going to move out of your collegiate city for another, or stay? How is your journalism/communications degree helping or hurting you? Have you found an apartment yet? What about the psychological aspects of being a legal independent? Living on your own? Doing your own taxes? Paying for graduate school - alone?

In my opinion, "The Graduates" is a stellar opportunity for not only these eight seniors, but all of the class of 2007 and beyond - yet I fear the opportunity will be wasted on writings of high-flying dreams, hopes and aspirations. Not that those aren't important - they're what get you through the day and are worth living for, believe me - but I think some real tough-love posts are due on this new blog. Otherwise, what's there to be scared of? The next president?

To boot, the blog is only available on TimesSelect, and though The Times has recently made the service free for those with a ".edu" address, few know about it and fewer know how to activate it (I did only recently, and I consider myself 'in the know'). Plus, TimesSelect expires when you graduate - so all eight of these seniors won't be able to read their own blog writing after May.

Additionally, it's nearly impossible to find, and isn't yet listed in The Times' own blogroll.

In the end, I think "The Graduates" misses the mark by not practicing what it's assumedly preaching. You can find real honesty and worries buried in message boards all over the Internet - why can't that reality be pushed into the spotlight?

A better way to do it? Select some students who aren't afraid to write honestly. Journalism students might be good writers, but writing for The Times, they're far too concerned with how they appear under such a masthead. Get the word out to major colleges and universities that the blog exists (since apparently, "no young people read the newspaper anymore") and let the comments build. But most importantly, just get the word out - it's not like students don't want to speak about their problems. (And those problems are not about whether Family Vacation or Animal House is a better movie, either.)

In the end, make sure everyone of every age reads it - because the Class of 2007 is sick of reading about how they're burdened by debt, job prospects and politics from people who are old enough to be their parents.

Let them speak for themselves. And let them speak the truth.

A Generation of Journalists Uninsured: Writing Without Health Insurance

This week, New York magazine ran a cover story on the "Young and Uninsured," or the "Young Invincibles," as the insurance industry apparently likes to call them. The story explains how young (20-30), healthy, non-salaried workers are stuck in this insuranceless, safety net-less void between graduation and a long-term job with benefits, and the phenomenon is only growing due to the migration away from '50s-style lifelong jobs.

The entire time, I couldn't help but think about journalists.

I often hear about how rough the job market is, especially in a major urban area, for young people. Many of the workers profiled in the New York article were working unrelated jobs - in restaurants, retail, etc. - to support their true passions, like art. We hear about this phenomenon all the time - but do we think about what happens when someone gets a cavity? Or gets hit by a taxi?

I've been having frequent, nervous conversations with others about the prospect of being without health insurance. And it's coming fast - so, like many others, I'm rushing to get myself "situated" before it expires. But what about after school?

I don't expect to receive a salaried job right away. Am I stuck watching preventative care fly out the window? And what if something unforseen and terrible happens? I'm certainly one of the more invincible young invincibles, but I'm still human - and I still live in a big city.

In a previous post, I mentioned the difficulty (read: impossibility) of a new graduate or new journalist in trying to make ends meet on only journalism internships (entry-entry-level, basically). I didn't even mention health care. What if you're out of school and older than 24?

You're screwed, that's what.

And I think that's just one more side-effect of a system in journalism that keeps its most entry-level workers at benefitless hourly wages (and no, worker's compensation is not what I'm talking about. I don't forsee any major damages incurred from typing and complaining too much about what I'm typing about.). This is what I'd like to call the Pursuit of (Journalistic) Happyness syndrome - new job, new industry, no benefits.

So I'd like to open up the forum and ask you, readers and journalists: Have you spent a time in your life uninsured, particularly as a journalist or related profession? Did something happen? Were you able to cope, financially? When did you finally get benefits?

And what about you Gawker editors? Alex Balk, Emily Gould, Alex Pareene, Brian Lam, Gina Trapani, Ben Popken? Does Denton give you the goods?

Or are you all members of the Freelancers Union?

Readers, allow this post to be your own profile and post your own stories. Anonymity is OK. I'm especially interested in those twentysomethings that are out there now in the big cities. How do you manage?

The Atlantic Needs Young Talent To Survive

Atlantic Media man David G. Bradley wants to remake the century-and-a-half-old Atlantic monthly magazine. To do this, he wants to hire 300 of "the smartest human beings" to write for the website as essayists - to create what he calls "a culture of great talent."

You know what's better business prospect than a group of uber-experts who already have high-paying jobs?

Hiring a bunch of young, highly educated people who can be groomed as a long-term solution to the Atlantic's money-losing woes.

The Atlantic's brand is serious journalism. It's online presence, however, is stagnant (not to mention its circulation!). Everyone respects the Atlantic's name and what they say.

Not everyone cares to seek it out. (Or brave its ugly homepage.)

Bradley needs to hire young talent because known uber-experts aren't going to present a reason to read the magazine online. Journalistic personalities and known bloggers aren't going to give me a reason to read the Atlantic. A new name with a new voice will. A staid voice, one that only the Atlantic can provide. What's the purpose of hiring someone like Markos of DailyKos if I can syndicate his "voice" through his blog? Or another big-name writer, whose voice transcends the masthead into multiple stories?

The Atlantic needs a marquee name, but it needs to cultivate it. Give me strong reporting, give me a story that isn't currently being reported and make sure you spell it right - because even veterans can't get it right.

Take a lesson from sports teams - those that hire star players hedge their bets on one expensive, but productive, season. Those that invest in young talent invest in a dynasty.

So Mr. Bradley, give me trust from a masthead that I'm willing to trust. You might be losing circulation, but you're not losing your head.

Here's Bradley's chance to revamp the Atlantic and stop resting on its laurels. The venue is new - online - and maybe his staff should be, too. We can all agree that they'll work harder. Be Salon - without being "Salon." Be what they want to be.

People will read it if its accessible. They'll read it even more if it's new and original.

So invest in young, talented journalists to do it. They're cheaper and more productive. And hell, our C.V.s are only a click away.

Now that's a long-term plan. Get it?