Through journalist friends of mine in Tuscaloosa I've discovered an interesting system of how The Tuscaloosa News gets a sizable amount of their content. Interns. They pull from The University of Alabama and the journalism school instead of hiring full time reporters. The T-News has set up an internship program where they take on a dozen interns each semester. For every 90 hours the student works they receive 1 hour of academic credit and $250. So at 12 interns a semester and three hours each the T-News will get 3,240 work hours for $9,000 without benefits.

Because there are only 12 spots for interns the T-News can still be somewhat selective to assure they will be getting honest, hard working, talented reporters. This type of partnership could be applied to many college towns with small to mid size papers. It can be mutually beneficial to both the students by gaining professional experience and to the papers by getting content at a lesser rate than a full time salary.

An article on Romenesko got me thinking about executive pay in journalism and how it has effected the industry. The article discusses how Craig Dubow, the CEO of Gannett, is being offered $19.3 million to leave the company. Essentially, his salary has become too expensive for the company pay so they're trying to get him to take a pay out now instead of having to pay him closer to $30 million when he retires. What's even more interesting is someone commented that while Dubow's pay has increased in these harsh times his employees have taken pay cuts. No wonder they want to get rid of him. I have heard informally that a similar situation had occurred at the New York Times. The company as a whole is taking a loss while their publishers continue to make more money. Is this a trend in journalism not only on the business side, but for bureaus on the reporting side as well?

The famous journalists that have been working for the same publications for awhile are making far more than the average journalist. Some would argue that they should be after their years of service and expertise. I'm not saying I disagree with that argument, but at some point I think publications start paying more for their name and less for their productivity. For instance, at Hearst's Washington bureau there are 8 employees one of which is Helen Thomas. She is 90 and has covered presidents since John F. Kennedy. She is a former White House correspondent and now a political columnist and I feel confident she is making more than most other journalists. However, when she is no longer working I would be willing to bet the bureau could hire 3 or 4 young journalists for her one salary and they would produce far more content and have a more diverse skill set.

I think is the best hope that young journalists have in our uncertain industry. We can and will work tirelessly, offering our skills in written reporting and visual media, for far less money than is expected by a veteran reporter.

To read the article from Romenesko click here: http://www.footnoted.org/buried-treasure/an-oddly-placed-reward-at-gannett/

According to the New York Times, the way news networks will survive is by coupling with a cable network following a model like MSNBC and NBC. ABC is currently trying to shrink their size by 400 employees which is comparable to MSNBC and NBC's staff. If buy outs don't work, ABC said those who should be most concerned about their jobs are those with only one function or skill. I was very happy to hear the NY Times reporting this because it reinforced everything our professors have been telling us. Employers want to be able to pay one young journalists to write, take photos, edit video, etc. instead of paying one person to do each of those tasks. I now feel like my extra class to earn a double concentration in Journalism and Visual communication will be worth my time and perhaps make me more marketable when I graduate in a year.

To read more about ABC and how they plan to survive go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/business/media/01network.html?pagewanted=2