Opinions on the job outlook in TV

[TAFKA wacowx]

Just trying to get a feel for your opinions on this topic. In the 90s, there were many shops that closed or consolidated operations and basically eliminated hundreds of TV jobs across the country.

In the '00s, there were startup 24-hours news operations and digital-tier weather channels meant jobs (for at least us weather people), but that has stopped and I fear that we will start to see a contraction again. I can't imagine that with the cost of going digital, there won't be at least a few casualties who cannot afford to upgrade. And with a continuing proliferation of choices on cable and satellite and more and more advertising dollars being funneled to other sources, other stations may realize it is in their best interest to eliminate news.

Like the dot-com bust and the recent home loan travesties that are just coming to light, I feel that in the next 5 years the TV business could experience a similar contraction. I could see, on average, each and every market losing one source of news whether it be through simulcasting, consolidation or closing. Some markets won't lose any and some may lose more than one, but we could slough over 200 news stations and easily thousands of TV jobs in the next 5 years.

Am I on the right track? Too fast? Number of shops/jobs will stay the same but salaries will drop even lower?

What's your take?

[overthehill]

I don't see TV news going away because, in nearly every market, at nearly every station, it still makes money for our owners...even when the product we create isn't exactly the greatest.

There is always going to be a market for writers and storytellers...producers too.

I think contraction, if any, will happen to those not skilled to think multi-media, multi-platform. All of us need to find ways to think beyond creation of a TV story for television alone. Each of us needs to think of doing more than shoveling the text of our stories to a website or streaming the same thing we put on the air.

Multi-talented, multi skilled individuals, who know the basics in reporting and writing and producing will always have job opportunities in the visual media.

As for salaries, don't expect anything dramatic either direction. Salaries have gradually increased (avg 3-5% per year) for at least a dozen year. Why is there anything to stop that trend? We've learned to live with it and the managers who hold the purse strings know it.

[ November 08, 2007, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: overthehill ]

[Old Shooter]

I don't see a very nice picture on the Horizon for broadcast journalists.

I don't see too many stations closing because of the cost to convert to digital as there will always be someone to buy the license and continue operating.

I do suspect that in the next decade you will see a contraction in the number of stations that maintain a full local news cast schedule. With the defection to internet based news there just will not be the dollars to support all those salaries when you can get more money for cheaper programming.

I would guess that in markets with 4 affiliates now doing news you will lose 1 or 2 in the next decade.

Regarding the internet, as bandwidth increases more people will be delivering "broadcast news" in some form there. Be it build your own newscast or more traditional broadcasts on demand.

The bad news again is that there are not the dollars on the internet to support free standing news and production operations that only deliver their product on the internet. The web is a fine way to repurpose already shot material but cant support itself.

As the current veterans retire they will be replaced with younger and cheaper people using less capable gear. I think you will see fewer people actually able to make a career level salary in TV within just a few years.

One area of expansion I see is for narrowly targeted newscasts that target specific industries or areas of interest. These will be subscription services that deliver more real time information than are available in the trade journals and more narrow in scope than a standard newscast.

Those are just my thoughts but I see the writing on the wall each time I look at money forecasts vs. the budget it takes to run the newsroom as we currently have it staffed.

But don't feel bad you could work for a newspaper.

[F4 Fan]

Both overhthehill and Old Shooter speak with a great deal of experience and clarity on this particular topic and I would whole heartily agree with them. But we do sometimes overestimate the reach that alternative media outlets have in the lives of many.

My in-laws are in their sixties, retired or approaching retirement. They don’t read a daily newspaper; they had the Internet but decided that $29.99 a month just wasn’t worth it. Their one computer is used to play games on and pretty much that’s all it’s used for. They have a satellite dish and get hundred of channels, but where do they get their news from – the local affiliates.

In some parts of the country that period around dinnertime with Suzy Bouffant and Tommy Hairspray are the sole source of news for many people. TV news, for the viewer is easy to watch and requires little effort other than turning the set on – and for many people that is as far as their knowledge of current events reaches. Anything beyond Paris or Brittany or O.J. is more than they want to know. Keep them up to date with the local sports teams and they are happy.

Unlike some, I do not see local or national news going away anytime soon. But if you read some of the topic threads on several of these forums there is an alarming trend among news people in their early to middle thirties who are fed up with the long hours and lousy pay and are getting out of the business or moving into non-news, non-broadcast related fields of television. Those two factors, low pay and no life, are not going to change. Colleges will continue to churn out producers, reporters, anchors and photographers who will gladly replace those who’ve left the industry.

But in order to survive in this industry people are going to have to multi-task. Photographers will have to learn to shoot and edit both stills and video, producers will have to think of stories across multiple media platforms, reporters will have to do more than just string some sound bites together with clichéd and hackneyed news phrases. They too will have to write across a variety of mediums each requiring different nuances of reportage.

Unfortunately jobs in broadcast news will continue to decline, just as they are in the newspaper industry. As veterans are replaced, companies will continue to fill the ranks with young, inexperienced, cheap labor. Jobs will be consolidated or automated. Interest and content in general news will continue to decline, leading to an ever-increasing dumbing-down of the product.

Even at the network level that I’m at, being first has become more important than being right.

[Spike]

Contrary to others' opinions, I don't think there's going to be contraction of teevee news outlets. You may lose a few here and there, but I think you'll also gain a few here and there to balance them out.

At the same time, I think the job outlook is bleak. These stations won't shut down, but they will be under tremendous pressure to cut costs. I think you'll see another trend toward running the station with fewer people. Right now the focus is on automation (Ignite!) and slimming down the production staff. But when they get that down to the bone, they'll look at the newsrooms again.

First they'll look to cut staff and get more out of the people who are left. That may involve simply employing fewer reporters and photogs and repeating their material among newscasts. Some will try using one man bands. But don't think producers will be immune; stackers who never produced more than one show a day will probably find themselves doing two or more.

Then, when staff reaches bleeding turnip level, they'll put more downward pressure on salaries. Overthehill mentioned that salaries have grown 3-5% per year over the last decade, but that's just companies trying to keep ahead of inflation. I don't think we can expect that to continue. With interest rates bottoming out and the mortgage crisis deteriorating daily, I think we can expect inflation to outstrip even those salary increases within the next few years. If your increase isn't bigger than inflation, then it isn't really an increase. On the contrary, I fully expect salary levels to begin dropping as the trend toward hiring people with less experience continues.

So we'll have the same number of newsrooms, but fewer jobs per newsroom, resulting in fewer jobs overall. And they'll pay crap.

The time to be preparing your exit was yesteryear.

[Don Konkey]

I think the whole industry is going to shift over the next 10 years. I think that web-based, on-demand hyperlocal news is where this game is going. I think that in the short-run, it will mean more jobs; dual-staffed newsrooms - web crew and broadcast crew. It is already starting at a shop across the street from me here in OKC. In the long-term, things may be consolidated, but that is years down the road. I think that if you are well-versed and roll with changes you won't have a problem.

[trunky]

"It is already starting at a shop across the street from me here..."

Like what do you mean, what do you see going on?

[Pregnant Reporter]

Originally posted by F4 Fan:
Colleges will continue to churn out producers, reporters, anchors and photographers who will gladly replace those who’ve left the industry.
I think this is the clearer picture of the future of TV news. Those people are climbing the ladder faster than ever before. When I had five years of experience, I was lucky if anybody in a top ten market would throw me a bone and critique my tape, much less consider me for a job. It took me 12 years to get hired in a top five market. Now I'm surrounded by 24 and 26 year olds, who are making half my pay but damn happy to be here.

And I don't resent them as people, but I resent the shortcut they were afforded and I think their lack of years on the streets costs us all, in a way. I get that they're being hired because they're cheap, they look good and our content - let's face it- ain't rocket science these days.

But even though we're cranking out a very shallow, slick and fast product compared to the real journalism going on one short decade ago, there are mistakes these young people are going to make as part of THEIR learning process, and it brings down our collective credibility.

There was a time stations wouldn't go live from standoffs, for example, because live pictures could reveal tactical positions of police, or it gave the perp exposure, or there was fear it might set them off. Now you have 24 year old producers putting 24 year old reporters in the chopper live over something like that, and EP's breathing down their necks to be first and NOBODY even questions it. And that's just one example of the problem I see with young, inexperienced people moving into major markets covering big stories with very little real-world street smarts to draw from.

I know, I know I went off on a tangent but really, to me that's a much more real threat to tv news than a few indies signing off because they can't afford the digital conversion.

[ November 08, 2007, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: Pregnant Reporter ]

[House Cat #1]

I realize I am going to sound like a geezer for what I am about to say. Heck, I am in my mid 30's so I guess in TV News years I'm an old-timer anyway.

I have noticed a very disturbing trend with a lot of the young talent in my shop. I cannot believe how common it is for them to inject their own personal opinions, beliefs, assumptions and judgements into their stories.

I was a newbie once as well. But for all of the mistakes I made at the beginning I could at least understand that being impartial is one of the cornerstones of our profession.

On a regular basis I copy edit packages for at least three reporters who see nothing wrong with convicting suspects, drawing their own conclusions in copy and playing fast and loose with "facts" that could get us in big legal trouble. These reporters all started within the last couple of years and are all from different parts of the country.

The thing that really gets me is how they react when I question the mistakes in their copy. They scoff and act as if I am cutting their legs out from under them. They truly look at me as if that is the way you are supposed to report a story. Since when did slander and false light become good things in J School? Did I exit the shower one day and accidentally slip into a parallel universe without realizing it? For god's sake, one reporter actually called some vandalism suspects "idiots" in the copy. No, that was not some victim's quote. That was the line he was going to deliver live on the air in his intro, himself.

I know there are good, talented young reporters out there. I have worked with many through the years.

Where are they all going? And where are these posers coming from? Is this all my bosses can afford now?

Don't even get me started on spelling and grammar.

graemlins/face_banghead.gif graemlins/face_banghead.gif graemlins/face_banghead.gif

[Gail sirens]

Now, I really am a geezer.
But amen, Pregnant Reporter and House Cat 1.
Nobody out of the box is THAT good. Way too many mistakes due to lack of experience.
And the young uns, well, when they're used up and spit out at earlier ages, they'll have a really big wake-up call, and no safety net.
Because the line behind them to get in is ever growing.
And younger, cheaper is the rule, not the exception from here forward.

[NewsMom]

Throwing out a series of observations, in no particular order:

1) This Sunday, (11/11/07) Morley Safer is doing a 60 Minutes piece on the "millenial" generation, it's work ethic, expectations, priorities. I'm looking forward to this story.

2) The latest technical toys are sometimes more important to managers than the story. Us oldsters are more accustomed to getting the story first, then figuring out how best to tell it.

3) Local TV stations are not the same gold mines they used to be, as cable, satellite, downloadable video, etc., cut into the viewer numbers. News remains a revenue source for them, but not like it used to be.

4) Business success is based on knowing your "buyers" (viewers, in this case). Stations need to recognize that the overall population is aging (led by the Baby Boomers), it's the older folks who are going to watch news NOT the younger ones, they're online. Web presence has to be integral to the newsroom.

5) Survival for television journalists is more likely for: anchors, one-man-bands, and multi-skilled staffers (shoot AND edit AND uplink). On-air reporters will lose standing, replaced by field producers and writers back at the station.

[Roy Hobbs]

Anchors already outnumber reporters at many stations, vo-sot-a-rama with a string of anchor wannabes doing lives the norm.

It's dead, Jim.

[Spike]

Originally posted by NewsMom:
4) Business success is based on knowing your "buyers" (viewers, in this case). But from a sales and marketing perspective, viewers are not your buyers. Advertisers are.

That makes viewers your product.

[CKMD]

Not worried.
Smart ownerships are already converting newsrooms to look at the bigger "alternative" media picture.
Once a newsroom realizes it is a tv station on the web and not a TV station with a website, the dynamic changes - get everything on the web first, pimp it and people might tune in to you later in the evening.
Stations with sucessful web applications are doing very well right now.

As an earlier poster said, roll with the changes, learn how to do more than just the job you were hired to do...you should be fine.

[Spike]

Originally posted by CKMD:
Not worried.
Smart ownerships are already converting newsrooms to look at the bigger "alternative" media picture.
Once a newsroom realizes it is a tv station on the web and not a TV station with a website, the dynamic changes - get everything on the web first, pimp it and people might tune in to you later in the evening.Yeah, but they don't need you for that when they can hire a 23 year old for half the cost.

[CKMD]

True...but still not worried. Someone still needs to manage the 23 year old.

[Spike]

Originally posted by CKMD:
True...but still not worried. Someone still needs to manage the 23 year old.Yeah. A 26 year old.

[CKMD]

It's sad that you've been treated that way and feel that way about our biz. While I have as well, I have a grander outlook.