I’m going to tell you a secret about my newsroom.
The 20-somethings there are indeed fast to pick up new technology such as social networking, RSS and the use of Flip cameras. They are also wonderful colleagues, as well as dedicated and intensely engaged journalists. Of course, that’s not the secret. What is surprising is that our youngest colleagues are by no means revolutionaries. They’re not the ones looking to adopt or push disruptive innovations or invent new formats. That’s largely done by people who are well into their 30s or older.
Opportunity Cost
This has puzzled and, I admit, occasionally irritated me. Fortunately, I gained some insight into this issue a few weeks ago while attending the Metanomics show in Second Life. It is hosted by professor Robert Bloomfield and he interviewed blogger, author and economics Professor Tyler Cowen.
Both men are media innovators. At the end of the show, Bloomfield talked about exploration, and he outlined the concept of “opportunity cost,” which refers to the cost of the alternatives you aren’t pursuing. Here’s a bit of what he said:
Rough economic times like these are excellent for exploration. Some of you are unemployed. More of you are probably underemployed. It may sound counter-intuitive, but now is a time for exploration, because your opportunity costs are low.
There is a second meaning to the age of exploration. The very young — by which I mean the 20-somethings — are filled with energy, ambition and creativity. But exploration is very expensive for them, because they get so much value from the pursuit of traditional credentials, like degrees from George Mason or Cornell. But if you are listening to this, you are probably in the 35 to 60 range. Many of you could be devoting far more of your time exploring new opportunities — again, the opportunity costs are lower for you.
I think the concept of opportunity cost can help explain why the young journalists in our newsroom seem to be more risk adverse. Contrast this reality with the persona of the young Internet entrepreneur today. They are celebrated for upending convention. Either they succeed and are applauded, or they fail, which is considered normal in the world of entrepreneurs and startups.
But the 20-somethings entering the newsroom of established media organizations seem to be a different breed. They are also entering a very different workplace environment than the one faced by young entrepreneurs. Within a large newsroom, the expectation and requirement is that young journalists work to acquire the skills and emulate the behaviors displayed by the older leaders within that environment. They are required to integrate, rather than upend convention.
If young journalists choose to revolt against convention, they will likely be rejected by the group. This means isolation within the workplace, or outright dismissal. Pushing the limits of the organization can result in a very real cost for younger journalists. It’s high risk, with potentially few rewards.
Common Good
Professor Bloomfield also spoke of another concept that relates to this issue: social good. Here’s what he said:
Finally, let me emphasize that exploration is a delight and a privilege that not everyone can pursue…but it is also your duty. Exploration is a social good. Explore to the extent your opportunity costs allow. We’re counting on you to help pull us out of troubled times, and give us new ways when we get to the other side.
This means that older generations in the newsroom — those of us who have been professional journalists for quite some time and have less to lose — have a special responsibility. We have to explore, to innovate, to take risks. This is beneficial for society, and also for the 20-somethings who want to join us in exploration, but can be hamstrung by existing conventions.
*****
What about your experience? Does the “opportunity cost” theory make sense when it comes to your newsroom or media company? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Roland Legrand is in charge of Internet and new media at Mediafin, the publisher of leading Belgian business newspapers De Tijd and L’Echo. He studied applied economics and philosophy. After a brief teaching experience, he became a financial journalist working for the Belgian wire service Belga and subsequently for Mediafin. He works in Brussels, and lives in Antwerp with his wife Liesbeth.
View Comments (31)
I'm also thinking that similar dynamics prohibit non-traditional journalists from fully bringing their experience to journalistic practice.
Sorry but Gen Y or Z or whatever they're called are neither creative nor open to risk, whatever the economic times may be. As a whole, they've been coddled and told they're so tech savvy that they think they can get by on their labels, as opposed to actually creating something new.
Gen X, on the other hand, gave us Google. For the post-Cold War generation, there was never any illusion there would be stable jobs in big companies -- nor would anyone hire them because of an impressive list of schools behind their names.
Unfortunately for the 20-somethings, they've been taught the power of the group is more important than the power of going against the group and inventing or innovating. Too bad there are so many of them. I have little hope they'll amount to much more than their parents, the Baby Boomers, who, well... what good have they brought the world?
I'm currently a citizen journalist, and a twenty something. I graduated from my university in May of 2008, and haven't found a job since. I know that I would be willing to take risks. Young journalists might not be willing to take risks because they may not know of all the laws behind what helps protect them.
Nelly Bly, I whole-heartedly agree. I recently went back to college to get a bachelors in journalism. I realize, most of the things that Gen "Me" (because it's all about them) are playing with, hooked on or working with were created by Gen X. The video productions I have seen from them in our broadcast journalism classes, look more like auditions as MTV VJs and reality stars than journalism. Some even went as far as to just record themselves in front of blank walls attempting to discuss their stories (with overuse of "I") so that "none of the focus would be taken away from ME and my story.
One female student did an interview of a school athlete. In the editing room, she came to me and asked how would she put her story together. I looked at her logged tape and then asked, "where's the athlete?" It was an hour long interview, with the camera just focused on herself, the interviewer. She replies, oh, the athlete was going to be the voice over.
While I have to admit that 20-somethings are more tech-accepting than 40-60-somethings, All the coddling and MEism doesn't work in the newsroom. In life, you don't rewards just for showing up.
If you are not getting the full potential of your internship, feel free to quit. You would be better off with the right internship, than the right name brand.
I recently had the opportunity to intern with a large news corporation. From the horror stories I'd heard, I was ready to sit there transcribing tapes till my hair turned white. However, I was exposed to the most inspiring experience I could ever hope for. This was because I opened my mouth as to what my goals were and what I felt I should be learning during my internship. Everyone has a pleasant personality, eager to assist and ready to nose dive me into producing. The experience I had really boosted my productivity in my class. This was due to all of the training that was at my fingertips and beckoning. If you are not experiencing what you should and want to be, it's perfectly fine to approach your manager and ask for me. Don't become complacent with being the delivering barista. It's just like being at the Doctor's office. If you don't tell them what's wrong, they can't help you. And who's fault is it really?
If the best and brightest do not pursue journalism, there are a few conclusions one can draw from the data other than ones the author presents. 3 possible answers, briefly:
1) the field is perceived as moribund and there are better venues for making change;
2) the rewards are not sufficient to the task and/or better in other fields.
3) the young that pursue journalism and the attendant credentials are quite comfortable with the status quo.
In summary, the premise is misguided, the conclusions misleading: there are smart, young professionals out there. The question should not be why journalism lacks smart, technically savvy 20-somethings. Instead, ask: where are they and why?
@Parker That's an interesting take indeed. I just visited LeWeb in Paris, where hundreds of young internet entrepreneurs attended and networked. I wondered whether I could recruit some of them to work in the newsroom... I think they have other ambitions (I won't say "higher" ambitions).
I still think the "opportunity cost theory" is a possible explanation for behavior in the newsroom, but I would hesitate (a lot) to generalize it for a whole generation.
Excellent observation - as a young journalist myself and as an adjunct journalism professor I see this in my students. The students who have a good, even mild tolerance for risk are saying no to staff jobs with terrible pay and are instead choosing to go out on their own. The opportunity cost for them is lower, and the upside potential to innovating on their own is much greater.
Good article.
As a young journalist myself, and as an adjunct professor of journalism I see my own students and colleagues following this same trend. Most qualified students, who have a good, or even mild tolerance for risk are refusing to take low paying jobs at traditional news outlets for that exact same reason. Why should they take a job at a newspaper ? I have friends who work at newspapers who make less than I did at 15-years-old selling computers at Staples. Its a joke.
M Legrand,
perhaps I overstated my case. I agree with you that opportunity cost is a disincentive to dabble at haphazard careers. Re-reading my note, the first two options are opportunity costs of (1) an industry in peril; and, (2) individual income potential.
Another way of stating the opportunity cost dilemna is, idealism is less (or not) a motivating factor in a career choice when expensive credentials factor heavily in access to jobs.