This was a prediction, not a prescription.

I see the web native newspaper being much more like Nick Denton's Gawker than anything that looks like a current newsroom -- and 12 posts a day seems to be the rule there.

I'm not saying reporters don't work hard. I am saying that the efficiency of the newsroom could use some work. Right now, the result of that inefficiency is that the online reader is poorly served, and the reporter eventually loses their job.

If you're seeing a diffierent future, where reporters are paid more for less work, I'm curious as to where you're getting your data.

"This was a prediction, not a prescription."

It doesn't matter whether you say reporters are lazy and overpaid now, or that they will be considered lazy and overpaid in the future. Both implications are wrong.

I am suggesting that the quality of life for reporters and editors can be better, and that a better work-life balance will actually help reduce the so-called "inefficiency" in our newsrooms.

Read any report about the expectations of Generation Y, and you'll find they value a work-life balance more than anything else.

It just won't be possible to continue the old dictatorial style of management that says whenever I want you to work, for however long, on whatever I tell you, you do. Good leadership, within any industry, will require a more empowering approach going forward.

Here's a prediction for you. As Generation Y takes over just about every reporting job in the newsroom, that change in our employees' expectations will inevitably affect the way reporters are treated.

You think if Google ran a newspaper that it would tell people to expect to work like the dogs they are?

Let me answer my own question: NO. Google believe the people who work for them are their most valuable asset.

And just about every book on leadership agrees. So if a company wants to get ahead, start doing the same.

Remember that in the future newspapers and TV won't be competing just within traditional boundaries for employees. They will have to fight with the Web-only folks for quality people, who are likely to value themselves a bit more than your "prediction" says they're going to be worth.

Let's not forget your forecast: "Journalists are going to have to work longer, harder and for less money."

Lucas --

Uh, you seem to be introducing a bunch of new issues here. You've overlaid a lot of old style management at my feet, where I never said any of that. I merely pointed out that the future of the newspaper is likley to involve more junior people paid less and doing more.

Last time I checked, a lot of great creative companies paid poorly to give people experience. Fashion, art, media all have unpaid internships, for example.

When I started at Topix, I went without a paycheck for a year.

I know a lot of great entrepreneurial journalists that have quit the newsroom to set up their own operations -- normally for a lot less up front pay, but some down the road upside.

I stand by my prediction. Let me add that the smart ones will have ownership in what they're doing.

If you want a better newsroom, start measuring output and readership per article, and rewarding people for building audience.

First of all, stop couching your views behind a "prediction." Do you or don't you believe that reporters in the future should work more, for less? Just be upfront about what seems to be more than a prediction -- it's the way you think it should be.

And it seems I need to remind everyone that the people you're talking about in your PRESSTIME comment are not "entrepreneurial journalists" who should expect little pay. And they're not interns, just happy for the experience.

We're talking about everyday people trying to make a career and take care of their families. These people already work hard, for little. And any prediction that says they deserve less is based in a poor understanding of leadership.

If you don't believe people should work more for less, then I would ask that you take back your comment in PRESSTIME because it doesn't reflect your true beliefs. But I doubt you will.

Whoa.

>Do you or don't you believe that reporters in >the future should work more, for less?

I personally don't care what reporters make. I think it's pretty dangerous, though, to rely on people "deserving" better wages as your economic model.

There is no "should".

I started out in technical support. That ship has sailed - there are no jobs like what I had when I started in my industry. I live in Silicon Valley, and have been through two major downturns, where lots of people lost their jobs (like hundreds fo thousands of people within a few years)

Deal with the fact that your industry is changing, and if you don't help your company make money, you're out of a job.

To be clear, I think there are some great opportuntiies for reporters in the future - some I'm hoping to create personally.

But drop the baggage that newspapers and journalism get some sort of special pass from the laws of supply and demand.

As far as the "way I think it should be",
I'd look to Hearst or Pulitzer or McCormick for guidance. I don't think they'd cotton to your talk of "should" and "deserve".

They'd go out and build something that made money.

It seems where we diverge is on this question of whether people deserve good working conditions. They do, irrespective of where they work.

And to me, good working conditions include a reasonable work week for reasonable pay. Any increase in the number of hours that reporters and editors work makes that time unreasonable. Any decrease in pay does the same.

This argument isn't about business and what makes them work correctly. It's the responsibility of the business to succeed within the rules of the game ... and those rules are the workers must be treated fairly.

This argument isn't about business; it's about leadership. Your suggestion that it's ever necessary for a business -- newspapers or otherwise -- to take advantage of its employees is unacceptable.

To contradict your prediction, let me make my own. Any business that succumbs to your belief will ultimately drive away its best talent. And in the face of any competition that actually values its talent, those that have taken your prediction to heart will fail.

On working conditions, people deserve the kind of conditions they will accept. You can always change jobs if you don't like your conditions. And if you don't like them enough, you will change jobs, even professions. That's part of a free market system.

On salary, people deserve to make what the market says they will make. The market says a cashier at MacDonald's deserves to make minimum wage. Are you saying he or she deserves more just because he or she has a job?

Or to put it another way, if you landed a job as CEO of a multi-billion company, should you deserve to make only a living age -- say $60,000 a year -- or should you make a base salary of say, $600,000 a year because that's what the market says a CEO in that particular industry is worth ... should you take only the smaller wage because that's all you _deserve_?

In a free economy, the market determines what a person deserves to make, not some political manifesto about "living wages" or some philosophical sense of "people deserve" this or that. Nobody deserves anything they can't get for themselves. No government or company owes me anything that I don't earn.

In the future, reporters will make what the market says they are worth. I'm not sure I agree with Chris that it will be less. It might be substantially more, for the good ones, because the good ones will not just be repoters/bloggers, they will be brands, and keeping them on payroll and happy will be a critical business need, because their page views will equal revenue.

In the future, news organizations will need people/names who can bring in eyeballs (hell, we need that now), just by dent of who they are, not just what they write. People with that talent will be in high demand and be able to command top dollar; but they will also still need the brand of a good news organization to help promote them -- it will be a symbiotic relationship that pays dividends for both sides.

There will probably be a lot of work-a-day types who just fill air and space for the bare minimum of salary. And they, too, will get what they deserve.

Howard and I totally agree. When I say "deserve," I do mean what the market will pay for top talent. But if folks follow the Tolles prediction and start paying people less for more, then they'll get what they pay for. And it won't be top talent.

Pay any legal wage you want and there's always someone to do the job. So the issue won't become finding people to do the work. It will be finding quality people who deserve more because competitors or other professions would pay more.

Deciding to pay reporters less for more equates to throwing in the towel. The best reporters will leave for ESPN and Yahoo, as they are in the sports arena already.