Column: Newspaper jobs just got worse, somehow

These days, when I tell people I’m in the newspaper business, they tend to respond with that look — you know, the one that, to a casual observer, would seem to indicate I just told them my kids had been put into a foster home, or that my doctor just gave me six months, tops. It’s a mixture of concern, pity and a sort of abject incredulity. Sometimes I even see it in the mirror.

Unfortunately, I fear it’s only going to get worse now that the Wall Street Journal has reported on careercast.com’s “Worst Jobs of 2012,” with the fifth worst being, yes, “newspaper reporter.” To which I can only say: Lumberjack, dairy farmer, oil rig worker and enlisted soldier, you’ve been pwned! Boo-ya!

Actually, I was a little taken aback by newspaper reporter’s high showing. Yes, it can be a tough job, in that it basically hinges on bothering people all day long, sort of like a telemarketer who writes down and publishes everything you say. But unlike some of the other professions on the list, there’s not much chance of our subjects falling the wrong way and crushing us or exploding suddenly in a massive fireball. (Unless maybe your paper is in New Jersey.)

Still, to be a “best job” a job apparently has to have just the right combination of a good work environment, a high salary and low stress. In other words, it has to be a job that doesn’t exist here on earth, but rather in some whimsical make-believe workplace full of imaginary responsibilities and stunningly generous bonuses. (Sample jobs: Unicorn groomer, Goldman Sachs executive.)

So the No. 1 best job is of course “software engineer,” although I question how good a work environment that could be, given that every day when you went into the office, you’d be surrounded by software engineers. (Just a little high-tech IT humor there.)

As for jobs that are still among the worst but supposedly not quite as bad as newspaper reporter, these include waiter/waitress, dishwasher (dishwasher!) and meter reader. This is surprising, because if you’re a meter reader you’re basically stuck reading meters now and forever, but if you’re a newspaper reporter and you work hard and put your time in, you might eventually be able to leave the business and become a meter reader.

And it’s true that journalists often wind up going into other lines of work, mainly because they get tired of their parents reading lists of the worst jobs and calling them all panicky about the remaining student loan payments. But the ones who stick it out probably do so because they’re not looking for low stress and high salary, for a good reason: They are insane. Wait, I read my notes wrong. It’s because they want to use their gift to inform people about things that are important in their lives. You know, things beyond what their meter says.

And that, I guess, is what separates newspaper reporters — who will be the iPad and magic web cloud and direct-to-your-optic-nerve reporters of the future — from the dishwashers of the world, no offense to dishwashers. What these journalists do is a calling, and it’s relevant, and it’s important … I’d argue at least as important as clean dishes.

So my message to reporters, along with their beleaguered editors (and yes, whiny columnists too), is to soldier on. Wear your worst-job status as a badge of honor as you uncover the important and even the mundane stories that illuminate the world we live in, and be confident that your industry’s so-called “hiring outlook” will eventually turn around, since what you do will be necessary well into the future, no matter what form it takes.

And if anyone gives you that look when they find out what you do, try to resist conking them one. They might fall the wrong way and crush you.

Column: Newspaper flicks worth stopping the presses for

You may have heard the old joke about the guy who cleaned up after the elephants in the circus and complained to his friend about the long hours, the low pay and the dirty work. When his friend asked him why he didn’t just quit, the guy responded, “What, and leave show business?”

Substitute “newspapers” for “show business” and you’ve basically got the life of a print journalist. You’ll notice I didn’t have you substitute anything for “clean up after the elephants.”

But that’s not the only connection between newspaper work and show biz. Reporters and editors have been characters in movies for as long as there have been movies, and for a good reason: because most screenwriters are disgruntled former reporters. Still, the fact that we’re in a profession that could actually be the subject of an entire feature film (like detectives! and spies! and Batman!) may, on some days, be the only thing keeping us here. (Not me. Other people.)

Personally, I can’t overstate how happy I was to find my favorite old newspaper movie, Richard Brooks’ “Deadline USA” (1952), pop up on cable recently. This is the film where the editor is played by Humphrey Bogart — Humphrey Bogart! — in a natty fedora, bow tie and overcoat. He stands up to mobsters, decries the rise of tabloid journalism and is forced to watch as his paper is shut down due to shrinking revenues. So it’s at least one-third realistic.

The flip side of the Bogart coin when it comes to cinematic editors is of course Cary Grant in Howard Hawks’ “His Girl Friday” (1940) — for Grant’s Walter Burns, journalistic ethics aren’t important so much as getting the story, selling papers, engaging in rapid-fire, whip-smart repartee with Rosalind Russell as reporter Hildy Johnson and being, well, Cary Grant. It’s worth noting that “Friday” was an update of that other newspaper classic “The Front Page,” a play that was made into several films featuring a male Hildy Johnson, none of whom could rock a pencil skirt and high heels like Russell. (Well, except maybe for Jack Lemmon.)

Even Jimmy Stewart (arguably the third member of the classic leading-man triumvirate with Bogart and Grant) donned the reporter’s cap in Henry Hathaway’s “Call Northside 777” (1948). Unfortunately it’s a little too sincere for its own good — it’s hard not to prefer Stewart’s slightly less straight-and-narrow reporter (for “Spy magazine,” yet) in George Cukor’s “The Philadelphia Story” (1940), which introduced the journalistic truism that socialites love reporters. It’s true, they do.

Sometime between the black-and-white era and modern day, though, newspaper journalists in the movies lost some of their leading-man sheen — the exception of course being Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman in Alan J. Pakula’s “All The President’s Men” (1974). This was mainly because they were playing real-life journalistic heroes Woodward and Bernstein, and they were Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman.

Not that newsmen weren’t still cool — was there ever a reporter who wouldn’t want to be Chevy Chase’s Irwin M. Fletcher from Michael Ritchie’s “Fletch” (1985)? He gets to hang out at the beach, pretend to be other people, like Ted Nugent and John Cocktosten, order a steak sandwich (and a steak sandwich) and put it on the Underhills’ bill, and, most importantly, doesn’t take notes.

Most people who actually work in newspapers point to Ron Howard’s “The Paper” (1994) as the best modern newspaper flick, and it’s hard to argue — I’m pretty sure the Randy Quaid character has been about two desks away from me for the last 20 years. But two of my favorite portrayals of newspaper reporters are slightly less grounded in reality, and yet somehow make complete sense.

The first is the team of Kermit, Fozzie and Gonzo (talk about classic triumvirates) in Jim Henson’s “The Great Muppet Caper” (1981) — Kermit and Fozzie play twin brothers who happen to be “crack investigative reporters for The Daily Chronicle” and Gonzo is their intrepid photographer, who takes a picture of a chicken instead of a jewel heist in progress. That sound you just heard is thousands of journalists nodding their heads in recognition.

But my new favorite movie newspaper man (boy?) has got to be Tintin from Steven Spielberg’s “The Adventures of Tintin” (2011). Have you seen it? He travels the world, never seems to have a deadline or an editor or even see the inside of a newsroom, and doesn’t hesitate to, in a pinch, shoot at people.

Sure beats cleaning up after the elephants.

AT LARGE Fake News Wednesday: Murdoch Scandal Proves Existence Of Newspapers

LONDON (CAP) - The phone-hacking scandal that brought down media mogul Rupert Murdoch's News Of The World

newspaper has shocked millions who had no idea that newspapers were still being published.

"So you're telling me they're still printing the bloody things? On paper?" asked Sarah Murphy, 27, of Tottenham. "That's just crackers."

News Of The World staffers apparently used the information garnered from illegal cell phone hacking for "stories" that they subsequently published on newsprint via large, expensive "printing presses."

The resulting newspapers were then carried - often via truck or similar gas-powered delivery vehicle - to people's homes and retail outlets. This practice is still going on in some places today, despite the common belief that all news is delivered over the Internet, primarily via Google.

"I'm just gobsmacked," said Harry Murch, 32, of Borehamwood, upon being told of the News Of The World scandal. "I thought Google had figured out a bloody algorithm to generate news at least five years ago."

The situation is reminiscent of what happened with the once-venerable Boston Globe, which ceased publication in 2010 and "almost nobody noticed," said Boston-area media critic David O'Kennedy.

"There are probably thousands of people who assume the Boston Globe is still being published today," said O'Kennedy. "You hear stories of the occasional elderly person shuffling up to the shuttered building to try to place a classified listing - it's very sad."

Apparently in America, many readers thought the only newspaper left was USA Today, which rebounded from declining circulation in 2007 when it announced that it would only publish photos of attractive people. And by 2009, studies showed that most teenagers could not identify a newspaper when presented with one, with some of them finding the unfamiliar combination of paper and ink "extremely disturbing."

[Read the rest at CAP News.]

AT LARGE Fake News Tuesday: Craigslist Reports Craigslist Killings Down Almost 5%

SAN FRANSICO (CAP) - The online listings service Craigslist reports that the murder of people that either place or answer ads on the site was down 4.76 percent in the first quarter of the year.

"Craigslist prides itself on ease of use, effective service and its users not getting killed," noted site founder Craig Newmark in a press release this week. "This is one of those cases where two out of three actually is pretty bad."

The company is touting the decline in Craigslist killings as a sign that its efforts to discourage wanton murder among its users are working. Among the steps the site has taken to curb Craigslist killers are prominent posts noting that listings must be truthful and used for the purpose intended, and that using them to lure or determine likely victims is a violation of the site's terms of use and can result in users being banned or moderated.

"We want people to feel somewhat comfortable that when you place an ad listing, say, a diamond ring for sale, there's a reasonably good chance four guys won't come to your house and kill you for it," wrote Newmark. "That's our pledge to you."

The company is also cracking down on other crimes facilitated by Craigslist, such as prostitution.

"When you place a listing offering 'a good time' in quotes and include a naked picture of yourself and hourly rates, we are counting on you not to be offering prostitution services," reads another warning on the site. "Please don't let us down."

"We are dedicated to reducing to acceptable levels the number of Craigslist-related crimes, be they prostitution, robbery, fraud, extortion or pederasty," wrote Newmark in the release. "But we're concentrating primarily on reducing murders because, let's face it, that's bad for business."

[Read the rest at CAP News.]