Big Money in Journalism

I’ll admit it: I got into journalism for the money.

Columbia Journalism School dean Nicholas Lemann has said: “I’ve never met a single person in 35 years who went into journalism out of pure economic reason.”

He never met me. While my motivation wasn’t purely financial, I’d be lying if I said that wasn’t the primary reason I chose journalism instead of, say, trying to make my way as, say, a poet or a professor of religious studies.

I had just graduated from college with an interesting but totally impractical major in what amounted to postmodern philosophy. I needed a paycheck, and the ice cream shop that hired me for twelve hours a week wasn’t cutting it. I liked writing and had enjoyed working on some college publications, so journalism seemed like a good way to earn some money and have fun while I was doing it. And who knows? Maybe I would grow up to be a famous writer.

But to be honest, my literary aspirations were secondary to the need to make my monthly rent and my lack of obvious qualifications. So when, after a long, hot, nearly-jobless Boston summer, Chris Shipley offered me a job as an editorial assistant at PC Computing, I jumped.

I was lucky. I got into tech magazine publishing by accident (there was a recession on, and neither Mother Jones nor the local newspapers were interested in hiring), but it turned out to be a really good time to be covering technology. Over the next decade and a half I worked for InfoWorld, Business 2.0, Wired, a mobile tech startup called Mobile PC, and a bunch of others. I got to witness — and help cover — the second half of the PC revolution, the rise of client-server computing, the earliest days of online services, the dawn of the commercial internet, and the onset of the mobile era. Those booms fueled a lot of advertising, too. Through the 1990s and the early 2000s, tech publications were awash in cash, so we enjoyed plenty of perks, like offices with killer views, lavish Christmas parties and generous travel budgets. Okay, so I wasn’t making a lot of money, but I was doing fine. My wife and I bought a house. We built an addition to the house. We started a family.

So yes, Dean Lemann, I’m willing to stand up and be counted as someone who went into journalism for the money. The bet even paid off.

Along the way, I learned that I love the work: I love the tech and the science stories I cover, I love talking to people to learn how they do what they do, I love telling stories and watching as people read and respond to them in real time.

I’m lucky in a different way, too, which is that I get to be a journalist at a time when the profession is being reinvented and turned inside out.

If going into journalism for the money seems ridiculous now it’s a sign of how attenuated the opportunities are becoming for traditional journalists. Needless to say, the perks dried up long ago. The four years I spent as a freelancer, from 1999 to 2003, were a steady downward arc of income, corresponding to the beginning of the end for the news business. There’s a good chance that I’m making as much money now as I will ever make — without changing careers — and that’s a sobering thought. Every morning when I go to work I think about how lucky I am to be working at all — let alone working in one of the most progressive and open-minded newsrooms in the world. I’m grateful for the opportunity for as long as it lasts.

What’s happening right now is the aggressive reinvention of journalism. Many of the most innovative journalists working today didn’t go to J-school, and some don’t even consider themselves journalists at all. They’re bloggers and writers first of all, and don’t necessarily pledge allegiance to the same motivations or values that inspire traditional journalists. The skills that make them stand out can be learned on the job, or through networks of like-minded writers, not through expensive graduate programs.

But the job remains the same: to tell true stories that inform and entertain.

I’m not convinced that journalism as a profession will even survive the next ten years. The economic conditions that enabled newspapers to support huge numbers of reporters have dried up, and I don’t see any credible way for internet advertising or subscriptions or micropayments to make up the difference. Somebody may invent a really lucrative business model that works, and I hope they do. But I’m not holding my breath.

The writers who are successful at telling true stories will still be around, and may still choose to call themselves journalists. Or they may adopt some newer moniker, or none at all.

In the meantime, though, I’m going to keep doing what I’m doing for as long as I can. I’m excited about the new tools that we have for telling stories, and I’m glad to be in a place where my job is to figure out how to use tech to find and deliver the news better. I still get excited about the possibilities of technology, and I like writing about it. So I’m not going anywhere just yet.

I may have come to journalism for the money, but I’m staying for the stories.

Big Money in Journalism

Blind photographers

photo of pigeons in Istanbul by Tim O'Brien

Brian X. Chen wrote a moving story about how three professional photographers are continuing to pursue their art even though they’re almost totally blind. One of them went blind after he’d become a photographer, but has found a way to continue working using a Nokia N82 and an iPhone 3GS. This piece shows the potential for technology — gadgets, even — to extend human potential and enable people to overcome limitations that, in the past, would have been crippling or crushing.

The photos are beautiful, too.

Blind Photographers Use Gadgets to Realize Artistic Vision

Blind photographers

To Run Better, Start By Ditching Your Nikes


Before the Nikes, before the breathable, antimicrobial running shorts, before the personal fitness coaches, heart rate monitors, wrist-mounted GPS and subscriptions to Runner’s World, you were a runner.

And, like all children, you ran barefoot.

Now, a small but growing body of research suggests that barefoot is the way adults should run, too. So, many runners have been shucking off the high-tech trainers in favor of naked feet — or minimalist footwear like Nike Free, the Newton All-Weather Trainer and the glove-like Vibram FiveFingers.

“People have been running barefoot for millions of years and it has only been since 1972 that people have been wearing shoes with thick, synthetic heels,” said Daniel Lieberman, a professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University.

Strong evidence shows that thickly cushioned running shoes have done nothing to prevent injury in the 30-odd years since Nike founder Bill Bowerman invented them, researchers say. Some smaller, earlier studies suggest that running in shoes may increase the risk of ankle sprains, plantar fasciitis and other injuries. Runners who wear cheap running shoes have fewer injuries than those wearing expensive trainers. Meanwhile, injuries plague 20 to 80 percent of regular runners every year.

But the jury’s still out on whether going barefoot is actually an improvement.

“The running shoe right now is doing nothing for preventing injuries,” said Reed Ferber, director of the Running Injury Clinic at the University of Calgary’s Faculty of Kinesiology. But, he adds, going barefoot has downsides too, and the research so far is still inconclusive. “It’s a total tradeoff.”

Chris McDougall, author of the recent book Born to Run, goes further. “If this were a drug, it would be yanked off the market,” he said of running shoes. McDougall says his own persistent problems with plantar fasciitis cleared up after he started running in Vibram FiveFingers.

This short video by Wired.com shows a heel-first strike in a traditional running shoe (left) compared to a midfoot strike in Vibram FiveFingers (right).
Video: Michael Lennon/Wired.com

What’s so great about going shoeless? It allows the foot to flex and absorb shock, says Tony Post, president of Vibram USA, which makes FiveFingers. With thick heels, people lengthen their strides, landing heel-first and letting the shoe absorb the impact of each footfall. You can’t do that barefoot (try it sometime), so your body naturally falls into a shorter stride, landing first on the outside middle or ball of your foot. As you advance your foot rolls inward; the arch flattens and helps absorb the impact; it then springs back up as you lift your foot and push off the ground.

“In a sense the arch is acting like a leaf spring,” says Post.

Lieberman’s research into human and early hominid fossils suggests that the human body, including the foot, is well-adapted to long-distance running without shoes (.pdf). He hypothesizes that early humans didn’t need speed so much as endurance — just enough to run down herd animals like kudu or eland until they collapsed from overheating.

This so-called persistence hunting is not as hard as it sounds, Lieberman says. “You can be a middle-aged professor like me and still be a good enough runner to have been a fairly successful hunter in the Paleolithic.”

He’s sure that running barefoot or with minimal footwear is the way to avoid injury. After all, we evolved without shoes.

“If a third of runners had gotten injured in the Paleolithic with runner’s knee or plantar fasciitis, you can bet that natural selection would have weeded them out,” Lieberman says.

Ferber is more cautious. His studies of the biomechanics of running show that a midfoot strike does reduce the initial peak loading force — the impact in the first 25 milliseconds after your foot touches the ground. But your foot sustains a second peak load of three times your body weight about 100 milliseconds later, regardless of whether you’re a heel-first or midfoot-first runner.

“So it’s six of one, half dozen of the other, in that you’ve lost that first peak, which is maybe a good thing,” says Ferber. “But in order to do that midfoot strike, you have to take a shorter stride, so you’re taking more steps per mile. So that could cause injuries.”

Ferber does note that knee osteoarthritis rates are very low in China, where many people wear flip-flops (which also encourage a midfoot strike), and that studies have shown women who wear high heels are at increased risk for knee osteoarthritis. That research doesn’t address running specifically, however.

As for efficiency, Ferber’s studies suggest a midfoot strike might be about 1 percent more efficient — but that’s within the 2 percent error rate of the sensors used to measure human body force, so it’s a wash.

Both Ferber and Lieberman are in the midst of long-term studies aimed at producing more conclusive data about injury rates and efficiency of barefoot or nearly-barefoot running. Ferber’s lab is sponsored in part by SOLE, a shoe orthotics company, while Lieberman’s research is sponsored by Vibram.

The Vibram FiveFingers seem to have a special attraction to geeks, for whom claims of efficiency and scientific research resonate especially well. Silicon Valley entrepreneur Tim Ferriss wrote about the FiveFingers recently, calling them “nothing short of spectacular” in a blog post filled with technical and biomechanical references.

“For me the appeal is the radical minimalization of technology to serve its purpose (conditioning) better,” said Boston-based software designer Glenn McDonald, a self-described “not-very-serious runner” who wears FiveFingers on occasional runs.

How to Run Barefoot

If you’re interested in trying out barefoot (or nearly barefoot) running, keep in mind that it will take your body some time to get used to it. Here are some tips from the experts to get you started.

  • Start slow, with quarter-mile runs at most, and build up very gradually.
  • Listen to your feet. Don’t try to run with the same gait you use in shoes — shorten your steps and land on the forward part of your foot.
  • Keep your head up and your body vertical. Your feet should be hitting the ground almost directly underneath you, not in front of you.
  • Ankle and calf strength is key to avoiding injury, so consider Ferber’s four-week barefoot strengthening program before you start (.doc).
  • Keep barefoot running to no more than 10 percent of your weekly regimen, especially at first.
  • If you’re running completely barefoot, run on a mix of soft and hard surfaces to give your feet time to toughen up.

Finally, don’t try this if you suffer from diabetes or another condition that would affect your ability to feel and respond to sensations from your feet.

“Like any part of your body, you have to build up very, very slowly,” says Lieberman. “If you really pay attention to your body and build up slowly, you’ll be fine.”

For more advice and information, check out Barefoot Ken Bob and Barefoot Ted‘s websites, as well as the barefoot running forum on the Runner’s World community site.

As a nerd and a runner myself, I could hardly let these claims go untested. So for the past month, I’ve been running once or twice a week in the Vibram FiveFingers KSO model, with occasional stints done completely barefoot.

Following the advice of experts like Ferber and Barefoot Ken Bob, I started out gradually. To kick things off, I stopped in the middle of a four-mile run one dewy June morning, took off my running shoes, and did a half mile completely barefoot on a smooth, graded dirt path. It felt great, like getting a foot massage on the run. But my tender soles were stinging by the time I was done, and continued to sting for the rest of the day.

My second barefoot run, on asphalt, went more poorly: I tore up the tip of my fourth toe on the rough surface and spent the rest of my (shod) run bleeding into my sock. That was enough to make the attraction of Vibram’s foot gloves clear: They give you much of the feeling of running barefoot, and give the same workout to your arches, Achilles tendons and calves — except you don’t have to worry about injuries from rough terrain.

But by the end of the third week I’d worked up to three or four miles in the VFFs and nearly a mile at a time barefoot. My feet got tougher, but were still happier with the rubber covering, especially on rocky ground and asphalt. Each run felt better than the last, though it’s clear that my calves and my Achilles tendons in particular are not used to this kind of a workout. I suffered from sore tendons and, after one longer run, a sore ankle.

That’s a common problem among runners who transition too quickly to barefoot or minimal footwear, says Ferber. He’s seeing many runners jump too enthusiastically into minimal footwear and develop plantar fasciitis as a result.

“Runners are insane — they don’t like to accommodate, they just like to do,” Ferber said.

The key, Ferber says, is to build up ankle strength, transition slowly, and keep barefoot running — like other really taxing parts of training, such as hill work or speed work — to just 10 percent of your overall regimen. (See sidebar.)

Despite the soreness, I enjoy running barefoot — or nearly barefoot. I’m building foot and calf muscles I never know I had, More than that, it just feels fun. And, truth be told, I enjoy the puzzled looks from the people I pass on the trail and the coworkers I terrorize with myfreaky rubber gorilla feet.

“We’re designed for persistence hunting, which is a mix of running and walking,” says McDougall. “What’s built into that kind of running is a sense of pleasure. You are designed and built and perfect for this activity, and it should be enjoyable and fun.”

So, like other nerds, I’ll probably keep happily running in the Vibrams, while eagerly awaiting the results from the next running shoe study.

See also:

Image: Jon Snyder/Wired.com

Originally published on Wired.com

To Run Better, Start By Ditching Your Nikes