Kevin Vranes has a phud in Physical Ocean- ography and Cli- matology. He now studies sci- ence policy and politics at the ... that beyond just not paying well, it pays abysmally? I was just catching up on a little blog reading and saw this Matt Nisbet post from last week. Matt is reporting on a survey of environmental reporting (I think all newspaper) across four regions. The results are interesting, but what really caught my eye was this:
In New England and the Pacific Northwest, only roughly 15% of reporters said they earned more than $60K a year, In the Mountain West and South, only 5% said they earned more than $60K.
Ok, that's one thing, but combine it with this a couple of paragraphs later:
Environmental reporters on average were very experienced, with a median of 15 years in journalism. Thirty percent of enviro reporters in New England hold graduates degrees, 22% in the Mountain West, 16% in the Pacific Northwest, and 15% in the South.
So what we're finding is that even 15 years of experience in a specialized, knowledge-crucial field gets you less than $60K in salary? If we do have a quality problem, there's the crux right there. What this signals is that demand is low for the services of science-literate/science-astute reporters. It also means, by extension, that as a news-consuming society we don't value good science/environmental reporting. Then again, who needs science when what the public really wants is the latest update on Anna Nicole Smith (yesterday's cnn.com headline, one of today's foxnews.com headlines), or Whitney Houston and Bobby Brown (most popular videos on foxnews.com and abcnews.com).
Comments
# 1 | dave | September 14, 2006 2:25 PM
That salary range seems about right to me. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the technical staff at LDEO, not the Ph.D researchers or faculty, but those with master's who work in labs, computer support, technical writers, etc. also learn less than $60K.
# 2 | John Fleck | September 14, 2006 5:19 PM
I just know anecdotes, and I learned a long time ago not to let the pay in my business bug me. We all make our choices, and the science journalists I know do it because it's an insanely cool job to have. But this is the tip of a bigger iceberg, because a lot of really smart people who could make great contributions to public understanding of all sorts of issues don't do journalism because of the money. Interestingly, people who publish newspapers seem to be able to make money regardless of the quality of their product, so it's not an unreasonable decision for them to make.
# 3 | Paul | September 14, 2006 5:36 PM
The data provides no information on low demand for science writers, or how society values science reporting, only the relationship between supply and demand. With rare exceptions writing of any kind is not a highly paid profession. That includes newspaper reporters covering not just science but any beat, most magazine writers, etc. For every rich novelist, there are probably hundreds who never get published at all. For every succesful screenplay writer, there are many who struggle for years with no success. Are any science bloggers retiring early to the Carribean on the fruits of their labors? Despite the sad reputation of our education system, it seems to produce a lot of people who want to write, and are able to write well, or at least well enough to compete for jobs. And heck, the teachers who get them to that point aren't paid any better.
ScienceBlogs demonstrate that we can get a lot of great science writing for free!
# 4 | kevin v | September 14, 2006 7:03 PM
John - one thing I am curious about -- all of the science journalists I personally know are very science-literate and science-passionate. Is this true across the board or do you have a lot of people who were English majors and never explored science even as part of their reporting job?
As far as people doing it not for the money, it's certainly true for academia. I love seeing the well-worn climate skeptic arguement (also promulgated by Mr. Crichton in his lovely book) that the conspiracy that is global warming comes about because it's lucrative -- university researchers have to scare people into giving them more money. Starting salary for a science professor at U Montana was about $40K and salaries elsewhere don't get much higher. People do it for other reasons, clearly.
# 5 | Inkette | September 14, 2006 11:58 PM
Kevin, you're totally right. I was just chatting to a climate scientist at an ivy league who got himself into stitches simply by imagining how much money he'd make were climate change NOT happening and he successfully exploited that circuit. Man, he'd be the richest scientist in the whole world.
But back to the point. It's true. And it's even more criminal the further you look back in history. I was chatting to this English Prof who worked as a science freelancer in the early 80s. Freelance rates were the same THEN as they are NOW. That was over 20 years ago. Unsurprisingly, staffers are getting pay rises in line with inflation. So what is a freelancer to do.
Sure it's a sweet job if you can play it right. But work is work and those salaries are peanuts in the grand scheme of things.
I'd imagine that freelance journalists across the board don't bring home a lot of cash.
# 6 | Holly | September 15, 2006 3:32 PM
As someone who's been attached to a journalist for almost 15 years, I can offer some observations. First, Paul is correct - ALL reporters make little money even though they may have years of experience; it's not just enviro-reporters (who do have the best beats according to my guy who had one before he traded up/down(?) to management). Second, science education is not generally part of J school curriculum. Third, J school does not necessarily make a person a better journalist yet MOST newspapers require a J school degree and having a MA level J-school degree does make one more competitive in the market. Finally, if the readership doesn't have an interest in science news in the first place or have an ability to make heads or tails of it, where will the motivation come from to revamp J school or the way science journalism is done?
# 7 | John Fleck | September 18, 2006 3:59 PM
Kevin -
All the science reporters I know are passionate about it and extremely literate in the subject. Do not confuse academic background with this characteristic. When I was covering urban planning, I was also passionate and literate in the subject. I'm also pretty passionate and literate about nuclear weapons issues. To do the job well, I think that's what we need to do. And since the pay is shit, what's the point otherwise? (There also, sadly, are lots of reporters who aren't passionate and literate in whatever, who are just mailing it in. But that's probably the same in a lot of lower-paying fields.)
# 8 | kevin v | September 18, 2006 4:42 PM
yea, didn't mean to imply that being an English major precluded one from taking the issues head on -- rather my implication was that there might be people who purused non-science majors because they're not all that interested in science and when they find themselves in science-related reporting that original inclination doesn't change. I'm the poster child for espousing on subjects I have no business espousing on (if education be the criteria). 8-)