She's headlined it "So You Want to Be a Journalist — 70 Years Ago," and she gives it a little background:
Sponsored by Vocational Guidance Films, Inc., this promotional film from the Prelinger Archive touts the thrills of working as a newsman in 1940 -- unless you were a newswoman, in which case your were probably stuck writing for the society pages. "Women find it difficult to compete with men in general reporting jobs," the narrator explains, "so girls who want to be successful in journalism should prepare for work in the special women's departments."Well, the "soc pages" and "cook pages" are mostly gone now, and that's not all that changed. Changed for the better, too. At least most of it's been for the better.
So I start watching the filmstrip (which is what we used to call a video back in the day), and I can't believe my eyes! The technology in is almost completely gone. Manual typewriters. Dial-up telephones. Line-O-type machines. And of course the "special women's departments." But as I keep watching, I start thinking maybe some of this newspapering stuff doesn't change very much after all.
We don't call in stories from a phone booth anymore. (When's the last time you even saw a phone booth?) But we transmit them back to the office when we're working on a story out in the field. In fact, your generation uses phones even more than mine ever did. And the attitudes don't change. The ethics don't change. Human nature doesn't change. And people still want to read the news. They may read it on devices that didn't exist 70 years ago, but they still want to keep up with it. And reporting the news is still a demanding, and essential, job.
I've been reading your analytical papers, and from them I'm learning things - good things - I hadn't thought of before about the nature of art and craft. In a word, the craft changes but the art doesn't.
Well, that's what I think.
Watch the video (10:38) at http://www.theatlantic.com/video/archive/2011/11/so-you-want-to-be-a-journalist-70-years-ago/249205/ and tell me what you think.
12 comments:
I think the video did well to cover some of the problems one may want to expect when covering breaking news and accidents, such as being stuck in bad weather conditions.
However, it seems to be a little bit outdated. I mean this, only because it seems that there are much more useful and efficient ways of gathering information in this technological era. For instance, a sports reporter no longer needs a phone booth to relay the news.
I think its funny with the part about women. It acts like they are being pro-feminist by hiring women, but in reality they are just throwing them an even more sexist bone than unemployment.
On a sidenote, what is up with the "accountant's visor"? Do all accountants really wear one?
It also shows how much more effort publishing and running a news organization would have taken before the dawn of the internet.
This was pretty humorous. It seems as though the makers really want to encourage students to seek employment in the newspaper business. Today these are much harder to come by. “if you don’t like to write, you won’t be happy in journalism!” Well, at least that is still true.
the video was accurate back in the day, but it was a lil out dated and some of the news covering tactics are no longer in action. somethings through out the video were the same as now. and also if you do not like writing then you wont be happy in journalism...classic
In the film, I learned that the reporter must have accurate facts. It's important as a journalist to get your sources and facts straight. Working in severe conditions is a must and can be unpredictable, of course so is the weather. The Press Associations gather all around the U.S. to broadcast news. They are being televized in different sections. Financial editors must be able to edit articles and be accurate when it comes to errors. Women find it must be prepared when working in journalism. It can be competitive against men. It takes years to write and practice. Check out courses in college. If you do not like to write, then you will not like journalism!!!
The video was very informative for what it was saying. It showed how everything was run in the 40's, although now much of that is different.It is a little outdated in the fact with that women were only suppose to do almost behind the scenes type of work. The photo work is even old because now they utilize all digital photographs. Its very interesting to me to see how much newspapers have changed since then. There were also more jobs then too because you had much more to do for all of the steps. Now these jobs are harder to come by because you as a sole person will be doing most the work.
A lot or writing goes hand in hand with journalism that is about the only similarity from 70 years ago to todays journalism. Almost everything has changed form the way news agencies get their stories to the way they get the stories out. Most news agencies today are becoming much more digital.
Journalism has change so much in the last 70 years. From the way its reported, corrected, published, and printed. What caught my attention the most was the jobs women had as journalist. News papers only gave women jobs and articles that had to do with cleaning, cooking, ironing, and decorating. Now women are a huge part of journalism and some carry very important roles in journalism.
@ Mike -
I think the accountant's visor you mentioned is what we used to call a "green eyeshade." It was a green celluloid visor, and editors used to wear them, I think to cut down on the glare from overhead incandescent (sp?) light bulbs. An old-fashioned newsroom typically would string lights down from the ceiling without any shade, so there was a lot of glare. Nobody was wearing them anymore when I started newspapering in the 1970s, but it was kind of a synonym for editors, especially anal retentive nit-picking editors.
I just Googled it, and there's a Wikipedia item at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_eyeshade ... you're right, accountants wore them, too. They can also be anal retentive and nit-picky, I guess.
the video would have been great 70 years ago so it did serve its purpose. now on the other hand 70 years later i think some of the things they talked about in the video still apply today however there were some parts of the film that really showed how out dated it was. it did show that before all of this new technology people used to have to work their asses off to physically make the newspaper
This video is very interesting. I think they did a good job describibg the step-by-step process to make a good newspaper. It demonstrated who did each role, and in what part of the office- or out of the office. Folks working in the newspaper business 70 years ago probably worked a lot harder, doing a lot more labor, than the reporters do today. That's not to say that today's reporters don't earn their money- they definitely do- they just have a lot more devices helping them along the way. People working in the 1940's definitely earned every dime they made!
This video may of been relevant in the 70s but times have changed. Present day news outlets have become more digital and receive and print information faster than ever.
I found it funny that the video suggested that women steer clear of journalism and try to make a living as bakers and housewives. This is not the case today, considering that a lot of women make a living in journalism.
Also, I liked the way the video ended. "If you don't like to write, don't choose Journalism." Thanks for the heads up.
Post a Comment