I can’t wait to read the results of this study by Serena Carpenter at Arizona State University.
I’m particularly interested to see whether there’s a disconnect between the words that hiring managers use in their postings and the words that journalists themselves use to describe online news jobs. Also, job postings are an important “leading indicator” of changing duties and skills in the industry. My survey describes the present state of affairs, and it doesn’t do a good job predicting what the future will be or what hiring managers WANT the future to be.
Do we need to read a study of the obvious?
At least brutally obvious to any media person still working in the field?
I am a working journalist with international experience, multimedia experience, several languages- I don’t even think in the terms of a person in HR.If I did I would be a lousy journalist.
An HR wants me to “sell” myself, my profession is about finding facts and discovering holes in PR’ “selling” to the , masses.
They have “target groups” and “audience indicators”, often as much as two such Indicators( as two people) fro a million potential readers/listeners.
I want to report on state of affairs and they want to hire somebody who sells advertisement.
We have nothing in common.
Indeed, journalist greatly irritate “hiring managers” because they seem not want to play ball by covering up, or being silent or even digging where they should not because it might affect revenue from the big business.
Of course we, the journalists, are supposed to increase readership but not by producing true news.