Journalists everywhere are shaking in their boots.

Rocky Mountain News, a well respected and well established paper in Denver, Colorado, announced today that they are closing down and releasing their final edition tomorrow. And here in San Francisco, the Chronicle, a nationally recognized news source, is glimpsing a similar fate as they frantically try to cut costs.

These newspapers, as well as other media outlets, are above all businesses and need to be making a profit (appease shareholders) to remain viable. But in this economy that is getting harder for everyone to do. It is possible that part of the reason newspapers in particular are failing is that print is no longer a sought after medium with competition from TV and internet, but these financial woes can be seen, if not to the same degree, in those latter realms as well. Young Broadcasting owner of several TV stations declared bankruptcy a couple of weeks ago, and major media company stocks have been heading downhill this past week.

So, to avoid closure and increase profits, media companies area cutting costs through lay offs and salary cuts. And it appears to me that this cost cutting is focused on the smallest profit producing departments, mainly, the news. From an insiders point of view of broadcast journalism (I will not name the company since my opinions are not theirs and I don't want to compromise my position...as an unpaid intern) I have heard about efforts to change the structure of the news to cut cost which involves having individual journalists doing more jobs and dramatically increasing output. While this plan is ultimately about saving as many jobs as possible while still pleasing the shareholders, one major thing that will most likely suffer is the quality and depth of the news, both because journalists are forced to plow quickly through stories to prove productivity, and because they will now be taking on roles they are not experienced with. Right now the news room is divided into specialized areas: there are the writers, the editors, the reporters, etc. but as the journalist are to take on all roles at once the high production value that comes with specialized skill will suffer.

This jack of all trades journalist, I've been told, is the future of broadcasting journalism. And, indeed, there are many journalist, especially in the independent realm, who have been working this way for years. But I cannot help but think a major shift in this direction will profoundly affect the field of journalism. For one, will it still be a viable career option for as many people? Or perhaps this change will give alternative and independent journalists a chance to gain more recognition. Either way we might end up with a bunch of unemployed highly qualified journalists. The real concern, though, is will the public still have access to information in the same way?

No matter the criticism of the mainstream media, they are still an important part of the day to day running and understanding of this country. And there are many journalists in this mainstream who hold on to their idealistic motives, but are now faced with a move it or lose it ultimatum. This definitely includes the journalists I am currently working with for whom I have a great deal of respect. I am also big fan of independent media, but unfortunately, I also believe that a huge portion of our country does not view them with credibility. It is those who strive to do their best with in this corporate news system that perhaps best reach those in middle America where Free Speech Radio News is associated with the term "Pinkos." I personally feel that to lose them would be a great loss to this country. Your thoughts are more than welcome.