There was a drumbeat of economic news ending the third quarter of 2010 and most of it was depressing. Unemployment remains, (as predicted by many), high. Who ever said the jobless recovery was right, despite that term sounding like the perfect example of an oxymoron. And, I saw this story explaining that hiring wasn't happening because company executives have masters to please and those "masters" are not company employees.
Here in the D.C. area, the average unemployment rate is just over 6 percent. I know more people moving to the District, finding jobs and it seems the chances are statistically higher here than most metropolitan areas of the country. But then again, it depends on what skill sets you are bringing and whether there is someone who appreciates them enough to pay you.
This piece was sent to me the same day I read the earlier story. More doom and gloom about the future of working in journalism.
Really? Overall jobs will decrease but those who can specialize will do well? This runs counter to what many j-schools and media companies are saying. They recommend journalists who are flexible and have a solid understanding of various technologies can help push a brand into public consciousness-- hopefully enough to drive up page views/downloads, thereby creating a viable revenue stream.
So, is it specializing? Or is it becoming an employee who can multi-task so well they can feed the newsbeast and not break a sweat? Is it both?
There's an old joke that goes:
Patient: Doctor, it hurts when I do that!
Doctor: Well, don't do that!
Going to work in a place you don't want to be is curable, if not preventable. Do the job that works for where you are now, and that could be multi-tasking, it could be specialization, it could be working with a large team or independently.
Just work hard to make sure it doesn't hurt.
*Chantal de la Rionda edits this blog
