Jennifer DeSantis, MBA’s Post

Here's a PSA for all the hiring managers out there getting flooded with resumes. If you see the words "multimedia journalist," "reporter," or "editor" below the name of a news organization on a resume in the next few weeks, know this: Those people have probably been doing at least 3 people's jobs without a pay raise for too many years to count. INTERVIEW THEM. Hire them. They'll be so grateful to do just 2 jobs at your company that it might be years before they take a vacation. The experienced journalists I know eat an average private sector workload for breakfast, laugh at what the corporate world considers deadlines and are experts in becoming experts on highly sensitive topics in a matter of minutes. Sounds like a pretty valuable skillset if you ask me.

It is a hard, hard week for journalists as multiple outlets have faced layoffs. When I worked in the media, I went through 8 rounds of layoffs in a decade at three different media companies. From that experience, I can tell you that it is absolutely devastating to watch your colleagues, people who spent decades in some of those roles, people whose bylines you grew up reading, walk out of the newsroom for the last time. It is hard, really hard, to then get the news out on time when you don't know what the future holds for your company, let alone your industry. Even before this week, journalists were overburdened with producing multiple stories a day, keeping the website fresh, posting to social media, and attending company-sponsored events. Now, at many outlets, they will be made to do more with even less. And all of this is happening as journalists face more criticism, mistrust and threats than ever before. Journalists are vital to a healthy society, a thriving culture, and a functioning economy. This week, and every week, they deserve our support however we can give it — through subscriptions to their publications, through donations to foundations that underwrite them, through the ad dollars of our businesses, through the thoughtfulness of our interactions with them. Even though your actions may feel small, they still can make a difference. Pay $5 to your favorite writer's Substack, subscribe for $15 to a magazine you love, donate $100 to the Knight Foundation, take out an ad in your local paper or trade journal. I get that there's a larger issue at play with business models in the American news media. And believe me, this is something I've spent a lot of my career working on and a conversation for another day. For now: Do what you can to make a difference today. Journalism matters. Journalism matters. Journalism matters.

We all often operate in our own worlds within our own industries, and for all of you in journalism, it's no secret that this past week (and really over the course of the last few months) the news industry has been absolutely gutted in a lot of ways. Major papers have gone through gut-wrenching buyouts, horrible layoffs and have even shuttered altogether. My heart absolutely breaks for all the journalists who have been affected by these decisions that were all made way above their pay grades. (I saw one woman mention this was her second time being laid off over a single 12-month period. That shouldn't even be possible.) I cannot emphasize enough that no one who gets into this industry does so for the money. (As you can see, there's not a lot of it in most instances.) They really, really love the work. When you disrupt newsrooms in these ways, you really disrupt families of people who have all coalesced around this same idea that the news and truth-telling and shedding light on complicated but important topics and teaching people things really, really matters and is so essential to a functioning democracy. I've met my husband through journalism, my best friends, my mentors and more and I owe it so, so much. I've always struggled with it being such a big part of my identity (since it can be tough emotionally and mentally to have your self-worth so heavily associated with your job) but I also completely get how it happened. No one gets into this lightly. The people who do this day in and day out are so incredibly passionate and it's hard when you're one of them not to get wrapped up in that passion —otherwise you would've picked something else to spend your life doing. I talked with a college friend recently also, though, about people who leave journalism to go do something else. We laughed at how just a decade ago in college we'd judge these people. But now I've realized, most of those people didn't leave news because they didn't love it or think it wasn't important or anything of the sort. There were other factors at work like crappy bosses, tough work environments, pressures (and the subsequent fallout) from layoffs and the like. Those stories were always more complicated than we saw from the outset. I don't have a point in posting this aside from to say, I pray all of these great people who have been affected by this industry-wide earthquake land on their feet and stick with this work for the long haul if that's what they want to do. And I hope everyone in journalism school keeps at it and goes on to do awesome work in the industry. The world really, really needs amazing journalists and I couldn't have been raised as a person by a more incredible group of people. If there's anything anyone in the industry can do in support of anyone affected by these recent events, whether it's loan you their dog for comfort, buy you a beer or listen to you rant, I think I speak for everyone in the business when I say we're all here for that and more.

A few thoughts on the contracting #journalism #business and its relationship to #investigations. This is my most LinkedIn-ish #LinkedIn post, so I #apologize in #advance: A neverending stream of layoffs from legacy pubs and digital-first companies provokes a lot of attention toward a silver lining: the steady rise of worker-owned media sites. I love worker-owned journalism. Defector and Aftermath will always have my money as long as I can afford it. Hell Gate, NY Groove, and 404 Media are must-reads whenever they publish. But, I fear worker-owned media is extremely limited when it comes to investigative work. Investigative reporting is often expensive. Deep reporting often requires extensive travel, pricey document retrieval, and vital legal counsel to help a journalist and publication navigate risks and threats to their business. An organization interested in pursuing deep reporting on the kinds of moneyed people and institutions willing to fund lawsuits, even obviously bogus ones, in an attempt to scare journalists into silence, needs the budget to support that work. One example: I have a responsive FOIA request related to one of my more successful stories. But, I was quoted thousands of dollars by the records office before they started work on retrieving the docs. I’m working to narrow it down, of course, but I could really use a journalistic partner that broadly speaking, supports its pursuit and sees the dissemination. How much more do you need in your savings account when you do good, unimpeachable journalism some rich guy doesn’t like? (No offense to the Rich Guy community.) I haven’t seen the worker-owned model solve that issue. At least not yet. Worker-owned media tends to be best with either or both of two things: 1) excellent analysis of information disseminated from good reporting 2) great reporting on lower-stakes targets Going after the big fish? That still requires a level of investment you're just not going to get with newsletter subs and podcast ad buys. And many of the smaller shops are still, regularly reacting to journalism done by the larger outlets. So, yeah, I know, bleak. But, I'll leave you with a different silver lining. Investigative reporting can absolutely draw a large, subs-paying audience! The public is hungry for both quick reactions *and* deep dives into the world they live in. (I've *seen* the under-the-hood stats on some of my own stories and those of my colleagues.) And savvy media investors should understand the two are inextricably tied. Investors and entrepreneurs in news media can find a sustainable, growing business with a dedicated audience that grows by healthy percentages instead of unrealistic exponents. I'm still a believer.

Every time another news outlet announces layoffs or shuts down, as is the case today with the Vice Media layoffs, I return to the same half-written op-ed that tries to express this opinion: In order for journalism to survive as a profit-making activity, journalistic ethics have to change in one particular way. Media outlets should be looking to monetize the journalistic process. By this, I mean that news publishers should be making money off of the potential impact their reporting has on the value of companies, up to and including companies that are the subjects of critical, investigative reporting. This could involve selling previews of reporting out to the highest bidders so that investors can front-run the news cycle. It could involve having a capital partner that funds trades based on upcoming reports. Or it could involve making transparent certain interactions between journalists and sources. For instance, if I knew which public company CEOs were being pitched to appear on CNBC next week, then I'd have a pretty good idea of which companies have good news coming out soon, and I could trade off of that information and profit. Or if I knew which public company CEO was ignoring interview requests and evading a journalist's questions, then I'd have a pretty good idea of which companies are trying to suppress negative information, and I could trade off of that information and profit. These are two basic, obvious observations about how the process of journalism can be exploited for profit. Now, imagine a market being built off of this information. Imagine that *anyone* can get that information by paying for it. I have no idea how to square this concept with insider trading regulations and various other securities laws, although I will point out that, in the examples above, you would not know specifically what the material nonpublic information is. All that I know is that journalism drives volatility in the markets. Information about the journalistic process would be enormously valuable to those with money, so media outlets should monetize it. I do not *like* that this is where my head goes when I think about ways to sustain journalism in today's digital economy, but this is the best idea I have. If anyone has a better one, I'm all ears. #media #journalism

The future for new journalists: low pay, long hours, job insecurity, and less meaning. From The Conversation US: "With a median wage in 2023 of $57,500, journalists’ salaries have not kept pace with inflation or jobs in public relations and corporate communication. "Job security, as ongoing layoffs suggest, is nearly nonexistent. Recent drives to unionize newsrooms have done little to stem losses, and they do nothing at all for the freelancers that constitute a growing share of all journalists – and, for the most part, belong to no union at all. "Inside or outside newsrooms, work typically involves longer hours and more demands. "And to what end? In many cases, it’s to perform tasks that aren’t that interesting or socially valuable. "The journalists we spoke to bemoaned the relentless demands to churn out new content for websites and social media feeds. They talked about using multimedia to report on topics that were assigned primarily for their potential to amuse and entertain, rather than to inform or provoke thought. They griped about spending more time sitting at their desks sifting through press releases instead of gathering original reports from the field. And they described fewer and fewer opportunities to pursue stories that are personally interesting and socially valuable."

In the last couple weeks, we’ve been hearing directly from journalists about what makes them tick – first from a Meet the Media event by State House News Service, then from 1:1’s with professionals like talented senior CNN producer Ashley Davis, then from new research by Muck Rack on the 2024 State of Journalism, and much more. Some of these points may not align with what you already have in mind about how PR – or more importantly, how journalism – works. But if you’re thinking about PR for your brand, or even your career, here’s six things YOU NEED TO KNOW, direct from the people doing the writing: 🪓 More than 30% of journalists have reported layoffs or buyouts at their organizations in the last year, leading to smaller newsrooms with fewer writers. ⏰ Almost 25% of journalists publish 11 stories or more each week, and 34% are working after hours most days of that week. They are BUSY. Give them TIME. Speaking of time: embargoed pitches are intriguing, and exclusives extra so – but they have to arrive 1-2 weeks before the news is actually live to be considered. 📊 Journalists need sources that can think and speak beyond the scope of their own news. That means data, studies and connections to bigger issues. And customers are often more interesting or helpful than a spokesperson. 🗣 No customer? Subject matter experts first, researchers second, and CEOs as a distant third are journalists’ most preferred sources for stories and commentary. 📳 Pitches need to be kept short (less than 200 words), simple and personalized. Think about what they can read on their phone screen WITHOUT scrolling. And if it doesn’t tie to their beat, or demonstrate a real knowledge of the broader industry, or only contains promotional information, it ain’t getting read. 🤝 Relationship building is what convinces journalists that you're a resource, not a one-off. For every interaction that produces a story, there should be many more than simply reinforce your interest in their work and relevance to their beat. In brief: treat them like people. Busy, busy people. Address them as individuals, don’t make them fight for the information they need to write their stories, and build a PR strategy that works in months or years – not days. Then everybody wins. #pr101 #publicrelations #stateofjournalism #strategiccommunications [ Photo by The Climate Reality Project on Unsplash ]

Sound argument based on my own career path.

Is “no comment” ever the right response? As a journalist, I would chide companies that responded that way, only half-joking that it left more space for me to opine. (Yes, I was referring to newsprint inches!) Inevitably, this usually garnered a comment, fyi. So perhaps not surprising that I vowed not to be one of these people when I turned in-house PR person. And for the most part, I maintain more situations benefit from a comment than not. That’s especially true if the story is focused on you and likely to be highly negative or include misleading or untrue information. Then a strong, fact-based comment of no more than 2-3 sentences should be provided. (More on this in another post.)   That said, there are select instances when not responding is the exact right answer. If the story is a broad overview of a workplace topic — say DEI or layoffs, or workplace trends (such as how companies are navigating the upcoming US elections), your comment could inadvertently make you the headline or lead example of the story when you'd rather be in the 12th paragraph along with other firms that didn't comment.    Also, if the story is about you, it’s possible your lack of comment or engagement will send the reporter towards a different, easier-to-deliver piece. Given the demands on today’s newsrooms, few have the luxury of pushing string up a hill on any one story. In PR, your decision to engage or not is a critical component in managing (or avoiding) potential negative press. Choose responses and comments carefully. #PR #mediarelations #journalism

The Media Industry is Facing Big Challenges I just read an eye-opening article by Clare Malone about the media's current struggles, and it really got me thinking. The industry is in rough shape with major layoffs, dwindling ad revenue, and reader burnout. Big names like NBC News, Vox Media, and The Washington Post are all facing significant cuts. The article also talks about how Google’s new A.I.-integrated search could seriously impact traffic to news sites, adding another layer of uncertainty. Malone’s reflections on her early career at The American Prospect are particularly striking, especially the advice she received: to succeed in journalism, "marry rich."  This piece really emphasizes how crucial it is for media outlets to rethink their approach and adapt to survive in this rapidly changing environment. Check out the full article for more insights: