Archived Chat: Today's Source May Be Tomorrow's Boss for Job-Seeking Journalists

By Kelly McBride   

I've had at least a dozen beat reporters call with this dilemma: They know, or they suspect, their jobs are on the line. Layoffs are coming. They are looking for new jobs. And their best prospects for work are with their current sources.

An education reporter is seeking a job with a local school district as director of public relations. A technology reporter is looking to become a writer for a software developer. An investigative reporter has an interview with a government agency for a job running a new program that serves impoverished families.

All these reporters are grasping for a resolution that will allow them to continue to do their journalism jobs while they still have them, yet open some doors that will provide them with a paycheck should their reporting jobs disappear.

Talk about competing loyalities. Under normal circumstances, it would be unconscionable for a beat reporter to fish for job opportunities among companies or agencies he is currently covering. The reporter would have a difficult time serving the needs of his audience, when his own needs are at stake. How could one offer up fair and critical coverage of an issue, when the primary stakeholders can impact the reporter's future income?

While many reporters aren't questioning their commitment to their audiences, they are losing their loyalty to their newsrooms. They don't know if their jobs will be there in a year. And they can't seem to get any sense of security from their editors or news directors.

One reporter told me this: "I would never sell out my readers and I would never distort the truth. But it feels like you're asking me to put my obligation to provide for my family behind my journalism. And I can't do that."

It feels that bleak for many of these reporters, who are mothers and fathers, sole income providers, and sole insurance providers.

After I explain that they are not alone, that many reporters are going through this, here's what I tell them:

• Resolve this quickly. The longer you entertain a job option with one of your sources, the more likely you are to find yourself in the middle of a news story where you have no good choices.
• Find an ally or a resource in your newsroom. Ideally this would be your direct supervisor. But many reporters tell me they believe they will paint a target on themselves if they let their boss know they are actively seeking outside employment. Another experienced reporter is a good second choice. Whoever you tap, you want them to be there to question your judgment and help you manage this conflict of interest.
• Avoid reporting directly on the company or agency in question while the job prospect is in play. This may force you to come clean with your boss when obvious news breaks and you insist on passing the story to another reporter.
• Make sure your sources understand your conflict and the steps you are taking to act with integrity.

Every time I end one of these conversations, I'm struck by the sharp emotional edges. Most of these journalists are smart and passionate people who have developed an expertise on a subject over years and years. They have decades of service to the business, if not their employer. In some cases, they will make a lot more money doing something else, but not always. They can all name dozens of colleagues who weren't aggressive enough when it came to developing a Plan B and are now collecting unemployment. They still love their jobs. They just don't know whether they'll have them in three months.

Next Tuesday at 1 p.m. EDT, join McBride and Ask the Recruiter columnist Joe Grimm in a live chat: "Can Today's Sources Become Tomorrow's Bosses?"