I've been thinking about the supply-demand problem lately as it applies to
journalism. How is it different than other industries with willing pools of
suppliers, but people are still paid well?
There are many willing, raw-talented writers out there, and I also know that
high quality journalism requires a lot of work and dedication, so the number of
truly excellent writers is small. Likewise, there are many willing professional
basketball players, and only a very select few make it. But when they do, they
are extremely well compensated, despite a large pool of willing players. What's
the difference between basketball and journalism?
There is still a very strong demand for high quality basketball among the
public. Additionally, in this case, higher quality is relatively easy for
anyone to judge: you have better teams if they win more than other teams. In a
supply/demand context, many will play, but very few can do it well enough to
beat other professional teams so the real supply is actually small, so the
players' price is actually very high.
Comparing this with journalism, I wonder if there has been a decline in a)
demand for or b) ability to appreciate high quality journalism or essayism.
The demand for journalism is probably still reasonably high, but the public may
be indiscriminate. This expands the real supply for writing from those few
truly-excellent ones to a larger pool of mediocre writers.
So if we lament the decay of journalism, we might wonder why we're not really
demanding it.
----
I anticipate comments suggesting I am out of touch with the coming journalistic
transformation. I read and enjoy many blogs, even those put out by magazines
like the Economist, The Atlantic, the New Yorker, etc. But I recently began
reading the print versions of these magazines again and I was astounded at what I had
been missing: articles where I couldn't predict the next paragraphs based on
the headlines; articles that answered my objections in the next paragraph;
articles which clearly had taken a month to write. I know there's nothing about
print vis-a-vis html, but when you've worked for a month on an essay instead of
10 hours on a blog post, it shows.
I also anticipate comments suggesting I am an elitist. In this sense, I am:
taste exists. I won't claim that only the truly-excellent should write. But I
think they should be appreciated, and more importantly, aspired to. I worry
that talented-but-not-yet-truly-excellent writers will think: I can work for
years to become truly good at something no one will appreciate or I can just
blog my heart out at crappy journalism and make a living now.
There are many willing, raw-talented writers out there, and I also know that high quality journalism requires a lot of work and dedication, so the number of truly excellent writers is small. Likewise, there are many willing professional basketball players, and only a very select few make it. But when they do, they are extremely well compensated, despite a large pool of willing players. What's the difference between basketball and journalism?
There is still a very strong demand for high quality basketball among the public. Additionally, in this case, higher quality is relatively easy for anyone to judge: you have better teams if they win more than other teams. In a supply/demand context, many will play, but very few can do it well enough to beat other professional teams so the real supply is actually small, so the players' price is actually very high.
Comparing this with journalism, I wonder if there has been a decline in a) demand for or b) ability to appreciate high quality journalism or essayism. The demand for journalism is probably still reasonably high, but the public may be indiscriminate. This expands the real supply for writing from those few truly-excellent ones to a larger pool of mediocre writers.
So if we lament the decay of journalism, we might wonder why we're not really demanding it.
----
I anticipate comments suggesting I am out of touch with the coming journalistic transformation. I read and enjoy many blogs, even those put out by magazines like the Economist, The Atlantic, the New Yorker, etc. But I recently began reading the print versions of these magazines again and I was astounded at what I had been missing: articles where I couldn't predict the next paragraphs based on the headlines; articles that answered my objections in the next paragraph; articles which clearly had taken a month to write. I know there's nothing about print vis-a-vis html, but when you've worked for a month on an essay instead of 10 hours on a blog post, it shows.
I also anticipate comments suggesting I am an elitist. In this sense, I am: taste exists. I won't claim that only the truly-excellent should write. But I think they should be appreciated, and more importantly, aspired to. I worry that talented-but-not-yet-truly-excellent writers will think: I can work for years to become truly good at something no one will appreciate or I can just blog my heart out at crappy journalism and make a living now.