[SemanticFog]

There's nothing unique to AOL here. When I first got out of college, I interviewed at local newspapers up and down the east coast. Entry level jobs had awful pay, about $15K/yr, but it was a chance to break in to the business.

One grizzled editor chain smoked cigarettes through our interview (you could do that in the office back then). He listened to me describe why I wanted to write. Then he leaned back, blew a cloud of smoke, and told me:

"You kid come into this business thinking you're going to make a difference. Pretty soon you find out, you're just filling the space around the ads."

He was right, actually. So I got into high tech instead, and have been doing startups ever since. Not sure I always make a difference, but at least I'm trying, instead of just filling space...

[zwischenzug]

Not just local papers.

I worked for The (London) Times on a student scholarship back in the mid-90s.

I heard editors telling senior journalists to lie about anti-government movements, and asked to phone up a sister 'paper and lie about calling from another news organisation to find out whether a story was going to be run that weekend.

They offered me a job, but I turned it down. I'd had enough being a machine to generate words at university. I then had to chase them up for payment for my three weeks' work. A measly 150GBP (total) and they tried to screw me out of that.

Ironically I ended up working for Rupert Murdoch in IT again (in a completely separate non-media company - not MySpace) for 10 more years.

I have to say I read this article and thought: isn't this what journos are paid to do?

[mattmanser]

Well, I guess they can't all be Robert Fisk.

I get the impression that it's rather a lot like rock stardom, a lot of wanabees, with a few receiving all the pay/accolades.

[billybob]

I majored in journalism and did work as a newspaper writer and photographer as a while, but didn't enjoy it. Eventually I found my way into computer programming.

The pay WAS terrible, but the job was nothing like what this AOL writer talks about. I was expected to research my stories and write them well, and was given time to do so. I would have quit if I'd been asked to crank out crap like this writer describes, and I'm sure any of my peers at the paper or in college would have done likewise. We had a lot of pride in doing good work.

I'm not sure how the financial model for journalism is going to shake out, but the world does need people who spend all their time finding out and explaining what's going on around us. It does not, however, need cookie-cutter, mindless sitcom reviews. I hope this kind of "content creation" dies a swift death.

[technomancy]

> There's nothing unique to AOL here.

Except perhaps the scale.

[zwischenzug]

Not just local papers.

I worked for The (London) Times on a student scholarship back in the mid-90s.

I heard editors telling senior journalists to lie about anti-government movements, and asked to phone up a sister 'paper and lie about calling from another news organisation to find out whether a story was going to be run that weekend.

They offered me a job, but I turned it down. I'd had enough being a machine to generate words at university. I then had to chase them up for payment for my three weeks' work. A measly 150GBP (total) and they tried to screw me out of that.

Ironically I ended up working for Rupert Murdoch in IT again (in a completely separate non-media company - not MySpace) for 10 more years.

[antihero]

That's a fantastic quote.