There’s a bunch of very amusing sub-categories of talent — often it’s 🫨 when there are people who still think they are talent when they are swiftly no longer being regarded as talent by the people who pay them, but also people who are mis-navigating the pain in the ass to desired creative output ratio is interesting to watch. You do have to be a little bit troublesome to be talent, whether coming up or coming down, because that thrill is what they’re paying you for..
Yeah, it's been interesting to sit on the other side of the table, privy—or at least adjacent—to those closed-door conversations about that ratio and where certain individuals stand on, essentially, the ROI scale. (Mercenary! But let's get real!) Always a treat to observe from the outside the precise moment when someone crosses that tipping point and you can just see the imminent "parting ways" statement being drafted... or maybe it'll be an unannounced beat change, a relegation to the back office and slow fade to obscurity... Anyway, for all reading this, I promise I'm not troublesome except for the requisite amount and only in the most charming way possible.
Imo the only people allowed to be "talent" in institutional media are the ones who are pro-establishment and will basically allow themselves to be used up and spit out by corporations. They are rewarded with lots of lucrative book deals and expensive cushy media jobs, but they have to hope that the corporation has given them enough of a launch pad that they'll be ok when they leave. Usually, that's not the case. They can always be deplatformed because they never own their platform. They've let the bosses have the balance of power for way too long!
Stephen A. Smith is crazy but I watched a YouTube video years ago where he was talking about how you should always put yourself first and only take jobs where you're getting more out of the deal than the company you're working for, and I think that was very good advice. It definitley inspired me to quit my job at the time and negotiate hard for everything, because companies are all evil! You just have to use them to get what you want I fear.
I was prepared to hate this column, but there's a lot of truth in it. It amazes me how often I encounter someone who doesn't actually know what's happening in journalism, and thinks everyone in it is earning salaries like Rachel Maddow or the Fox and Friends celebrities and whomever. $40-X thousand is still what many experienced journalists earn. Does the public realize that there are labor rules saying journalists are the one category of people exempt from overtime laws? Does the average media critic realize that the majority of people in media (at least, the ones I've met over the decades) AREN'T trying to become famous, but do want a little more leeway to write the important stories that matter, and to get there, they believe they have to cultivate some fans and financial support? I don't understand how we quickly shifted from people reading news and understanding the difference between hard news stories and opinion, to complaining about how they "watch the news" and it's all biased. Maybe journalists who want to become talent are doing that because it's the only way to pile up a bit of real estate to work on the stories that matter most, the ones that got them into journalism -- but we're seeing the pot-stirrers in suits rewarded, and not others. We need to employ critical thinking and look at the nuances, and support good journalism whether it's independent or mainstream (this week I've seen a lot of both, but usually not put forth by the on-air talent.) Good reporting is out there, we just have to take a few seconds to look.
This piece just came up on my Substack notes and hit so hard and made me sad!! Media orgs constantly exploit and mistreat those they don't deem "talent" and there are absolutely these unspoken tiers in media. I also think that being "talent" is also contingent on how much you're willing to kiss up to bosses and corporate power as a whole, and there's a lot of class elements at play it seems. The big "talent" making money in traditional media are not the ones who ever challenge the system, and they're certainly not the ones getting involved with unions, etc. Anyway, the whole unsaid hierarchy thing in legacy media is part of why I decided to become a full time content creator. There's hierarchy in this world too, but at least it's not a bunch of elitist jerks imo. I'm a huge fan of your work and glad to find your substack!! <3 <3 <3 ur A list talent in my universe!
Really interesting to get your input as someone who’s been on the other side of the equation! For sure that careful calibration of toeing the company line is part of the dynamic - institutions going to institute etc. I applaud the people who can pull off going independent after building up that platform. (I’m gonna have to ask you about making the switch someday, I find it fascinating.)
As an old Criticism Is Dead-head (I miss it dearly, for real), I was so glad to see you in the feed. And really appreciate the uncomfortable truths here. Subscribed!
“But, as countless self-help gurus and fortune cookies and LinkedIn hacks have declared, you don’t get anything unless you ask for it, so here I am. In the interest of getting back into the game, so to speak, I will write (in spite of the declining literacy rate, I still believe in the power of word) this newsletter, delivering media/culture/internet/etc. criticism and analysis and opinions and blogs—and occasionally mean jabs—with the intention of publishing once a month.”
Hell yes.
(but also I feel the LinkedIn reference may be a prophecy for what Substack notes etc will become in 3 years.)
Great piece, Jenny. There’s a parallel within the Substack ecosystem too, its embrace of video and new commitment to bringing in creators from tiktok. So when the next wave writers and editors set out on their own (because more layoffs are always coming and more of us want off the ride), the platform best positioned to help them do that has also bent towards capital-T talent.
As someone who remains loath to appear on camera, I hope so! I think there are still examples of such "talent," but it's an increasingly rare privilege. (Also, many of the ones I can think of are sort of holdovers from the blog, pre-vertical video era, so they already built their brand before basically everyone became allergic to text and flocked to YouTube/Instagram/TikTok/etc.) Even someone like Ezra Klein is now being pushed in NYT videos. Consumer patterns have just changed so much—much easier to build a relationship with someone you can see and watch and pretend to know.
I’ve noticed this in publishing, and I think the age/training of a young person’s *boss* is often what makes a huge difference. This isn’t a universal rule, but I’ve found that editorial assistants whose bosses came from the “golden age” of publishing tend to be treated as true editors-in-training, bright young kids whose ambitions are worth making space for; meanwhile, assistants with Gen X bosses raised under corporate publishing tend to get treated as perpetual scheduling/admin/data functionaries.
That's a really interesting theory! I can kinda see the parallel in media: I've come up in digital media, where people—bosses included—skew younger, and most have never experienced what I guess would be the "golden age" of print/magazines/etc.
There’s a bunch of very amusing sub-categories of talent — often it’s 🫨 when there are people who still think they are talent when they are swiftly no longer being regarded as talent by the people who pay them, but also people who are mis-navigating the pain in the ass to desired creative output ratio is interesting to watch. You do have to be a little bit troublesome to be talent, whether coming up or coming down, because that thrill is what they’re paying you for..
Yeah, it's been interesting to sit on the other side of the table, privy—or at least adjacent—to those closed-door conversations about that ratio and where certain individuals stand on, essentially, the ROI scale. (Mercenary! But let's get real!) Always a treat to observe from the outside the precise moment when someone crosses that tipping point and you can just see the imminent "parting ways" statement being drafted... or maybe it'll be an unannounced beat change, a relegation to the back office and slow fade to obscurity... Anyway, for all reading this, I promise I'm not troublesome except for the requisite amount and only in the most charming way possible.
Imo the only people allowed to be "talent" in institutional media are the ones who are pro-establishment and will basically allow themselves to be used up and spit out by corporations. They are rewarded with lots of lucrative book deals and expensive cushy media jobs, but they have to hope that the corporation has given them enough of a launch pad that they'll be ok when they leave. Usually, that's not the case. They can always be deplatformed because they never own their platform. They've let the bosses have the balance of power for way too long!
Stephen A. Smith is crazy but I watched a YouTube video years ago where he was talking about how you should always put yourself first and only take jobs where you're getting more out of the deal than the company you're working for, and I think that was very good advice. It definitley inspired me to quit my job at the time and negotiate hard for everything, because companies are all evil! You just have to use them to get what you want I fear.
"people who are mis-navigating the pain in the ass to desired creative output ratio"
paging chappell roan
Hello!!! I am so glad this emerged in my feed.
❤️
I was prepared to hate this column, but there's a lot of truth in it. It amazes me how often I encounter someone who doesn't actually know what's happening in journalism, and thinks everyone in it is earning salaries like Rachel Maddow or the Fox and Friends celebrities and whomever. $40-X thousand is still what many experienced journalists earn. Does the public realize that there are labor rules saying journalists are the one category of people exempt from overtime laws? Does the average media critic realize that the majority of people in media (at least, the ones I've met over the decades) AREN'T trying to become famous, but do want a little more leeway to write the important stories that matter, and to get there, they believe they have to cultivate some fans and financial support? I don't understand how we quickly shifted from people reading news and understanding the difference between hard news stories and opinion, to complaining about how they "watch the news" and it's all biased. Maybe journalists who want to become talent are doing that because it's the only way to pile up a bit of real estate to work on the stories that matter most, the ones that got them into journalism -- but we're seeing the pot-stirrers in suits rewarded, and not others. We need to employ critical thinking and look at the nuances, and support good journalism whether it's independent or mainstream (this week I've seen a lot of both, but usually not put forth by the on-air talent.) Good reporting is out there, we just have to take a few seconds to look.
I agree entirely
This post is so good and made me (appropriately) sad.
Thank you, fellow sad!
Subscribed!!!
This piece just came up on my Substack notes and hit so hard and made me sad!! Media orgs constantly exploit and mistreat those they don't deem "talent" and there are absolutely these unspoken tiers in media. I also think that being "talent" is also contingent on how much you're willing to kiss up to bosses and corporate power as a whole, and there's a lot of class elements at play it seems. The big "talent" making money in traditional media are not the ones who ever challenge the system, and they're certainly not the ones getting involved with unions, etc. Anyway, the whole unsaid hierarchy thing in legacy media is part of why I decided to become a full time content creator. There's hierarchy in this world too, but at least it's not a bunch of elitist jerks imo. I'm a huge fan of your work and glad to find your substack!! <3 <3 <3 ur A list talent in my universe!
Really interesting to get your input as someone who’s been on the other side of the equation! For sure that careful calibration of toeing the company line is part of the dynamic - institutions going to institute etc. I applaud the people who can pull off going independent after building up that platform. (I’m gonna have to ask you about making the switch someday, I find it fascinating.)
As an old Criticism Is Dead-head (I miss it dearly, for real), I was so glad to see you in the feed. And really appreciate the uncomfortable truths here. Subscribed!
ahhh deep cut!! thank you for listening to CID (always in our hearts ❤️) and for reading me here!
SO happy to read you again. Immediately saying yes.
tysm, appreciate it!!
Keep in comin! We wanna hear from you!!
ahh Mercedes!! ❤️
Thank you for this. Following.
thank you, Wendell!
“But, as countless self-help gurus and fortune cookies and LinkedIn hacks have declared, you don’t get anything unless you ask for it, so here I am. In the interest of getting back into the game, so to speak, I will write (in spite of the declining literacy rate, I still believe in the power of word) this newsletter, delivering media/culture/internet/etc. criticism and analysis and opinions and blogs—and occasionally mean jabs—with the intention of publishing once a month.”
Hell yes.
(but also I feel the LinkedIn reference may be a prophecy for what Substack notes etc will become in 3 years.)
Oh no!!!!
this is so real! i feel so much pressure to be better (and better-looking) on camera just so I can write/edit for a living
Hell yeah. We are the talent. We are the f*cking talent.
Great piece, Jenny. There’s a parallel within the Substack ecosystem too, its embrace of video and new commitment to bringing in creators from tiktok. So when the next wave writers and editors set out on their own (because more layoffs are always coming and more of us want off the ride), the platform best positioned to help them do that has also bent towards capital-T talent.
lol fantastic!!!
Brings up a question I’ve had for a minute - can people be “talent” without making on-camera content?
As someone who remains loath to appear on camera, I hope so! I think there are still examples of such "talent," but it's an increasingly rare privilege. (Also, many of the ones I can think of are sort of holdovers from the blog, pre-vertical video era, so they already built their brand before basically everyone became allergic to text and flocked to YouTube/Instagram/TikTok/etc.) Even someone like Ezra Klein is now being pushed in NYT videos. Consumer patterns have just changed so much—much easier to build a relationship with someone you can see and watch and pretend to know.
I’ve noticed this in publishing, and I think the age/training of a young person’s *boss* is often what makes a huge difference. This isn’t a universal rule, but I’ve found that editorial assistants whose bosses came from the “golden age” of publishing tend to be treated as true editors-in-training, bright young kids whose ambitions are worth making space for; meanwhile, assistants with Gen X bosses raised under corporate publishing tend to get treated as perpetual scheduling/admin/data functionaries.
That's a really interesting theory! I can kinda see the parallel in media: I've come up in digital media, where people—bosses included—skew younger, and most have never experienced what I guess would be the "golden age" of print/magazines/etc.