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.
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.
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!
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.
Reporting and writing are skills and always will be. Some people try to circumvent that reality by focusing on visibility and status, and they get visibility and status. Is their work of any value? Are they making the world better? Are they treating people well on their way "up"? I can think of some examples for whom the answers are an unequivocal no, and I'm sure you can too. Often, these "stars" hit a ceiling in a really embarrassing way. A situation calls for reporting chops or ethical discipline that they do not have, and they fall on their faces. You don't actually want to be that person who cuts corners, despite the short-term rewards.
Good journalism does matter, whether WaPo's trend-chasing management believes it or not. It sucks having to navigate a system whose values don't match yours, but your values are still correct — you are playing the long game, and you can prioritize the environments that share your values instead of folding to the flavor-of-the-month "rules."
I don't dispute that good work matters—that's actually not at all incompatible with this world view! Plenty of good, revealing, valuable (and, sure, exciting) work comes from these so-called "stars"—with perhaps some exception, they would not get that designation, and those opportunities, if the people who hire them did not think their output or whatever they bring to the organization would justify the risk and/or pay and/or extra work involved in bringing them on, although sometimes that ends up fantastically blowing up in everyone's faces. All of those challenges still apply to non-stars, as well—they just wouldn't have the longer leash of grace or tolerance or opportunity that their "talent" counterparts have. In an ideal world, this would not be the reality—but I don't think that's the world in which we're operating.
I understand and I totally agree with what you said in your post! I used to be a journalist and really recognized that feeling of total dread as "new rules" emerge that don't conform with anything I value. But my view is what makes any journalist's or publication's work valuable and sustainable does not change, regardless of any announced shifts toward personality-driven priorities. WaPo is just making a bad decision and it won't go well. They don't have to dictate the tone of the whole industry — that only happens if people choose to follow their lead.
By the same token, I do think that sometimes, when a media personality is getting a lot of attention, it just means they have prioritized getting attention above all else. There may not be much in the way of journalism skills or ethics beneath it, because news outlets keep rewarding cultivating a platform over other considerations. It's not always the case! But I wanted to say it because good reporters can lose heart when they see somebody speeding past them toward mile 26, and often, that person just cut the course. You will not regret running your own race when their major ethics scandal drops next year!
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.
"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.
❤️
This post is so good and made me (appropriately) sad.
Thank you, fellow sad!
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
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!
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.
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.
I enjoyed this pov
thank you!
RIP Longform podcast.
You've summed it all up so well here.
thank you! (and yes, RIP longform the podcast and the site!!)
Reporting and writing are skills and always will be. Some people try to circumvent that reality by focusing on visibility and status, and they get visibility and status. Is their work of any value? Are they making the world better? Are they treating people well on their way "up"? I can think of some examples for whom the answers are an unequivocal no, and I'm sure you can too. Often, these "stars" hit a ceiling in a really embarrassing way. A situation calls for reporting chops or ethical discipline that they do not have, and they fall on their faces. You don't actually want to be that person who cuts corners, despite the short-term rewards.
Good journalism does matter, whether WaPo's trend-chasing management believes it or not. It sucks having to navigate a system whose values don't match yours, but your values are still correct — you are playing the long game, and you can prioritize the environments that share your values instead of folding to the flavor-of-the-month "rules."
I don't dispute that good work matters—that's actually not at all incompatible with this world view! Plenty of good, revealing, valuable (and, sure, exciting) work comes from these so-called "stars"—with perhaps some exception, they would not get that designation, and those opportunities, if the people who hire them did not think their output or whatever they bring to the organization would justify the risk and/or pay and/or extra work involved in bringing them on, although sometimes that ends up fantastically blowing up in everyone's faces. All of those challenges still apply to non-stars, as well—they just wouldn't have the longer leash of grace or tolerance or opportunity that their "talent" counterparts have. In an ideal world, this would not be the reality—but I don't think that's the world in which we're operating.
I understand and I totally agree with what you said in your post! I used to be a journalist and really recognized that feeling of total dread as "new rules" emerge that don't conform with anything I value. But my view is what makes any journalist's or publication's work valuable and sustainable does not change, regardless of any announced shifts toward personality-driven priorities. WaPo is just making a bad decision and it won't go well. They don't have to dictate the tone of the whole industry — that only happens if people choose to follow their lead.
By the same token, I do think that sometimes, when a media personality is getting a lot of attention, it just means they have prioritized getting attention above all else. There may not be much in the way of journalism skills or ethics beneath it, because news outlets keep rewarding cultivating a platform over other considerations. It's not always the case! But I wanted to say it because good reporters can lose heart when they see somebody speeding past them toward mile 26, and often, that person just cut the course. You will not regret running your own race when their major ethics scandal drops next year!
Can't argue with that! Let us revisit in a year's time and see which way the winds have blown by then lol