HR
Amid a global information war and an unprecedented transformation of journalism and media, young journalists in Croatia are increasingly becoming the target of criticism from their own colleagues. For that reason, it is necessary to take a brief overview of the media landscape that we did not shape, and to speak about the opportunities we were not given, as well as the style of “mentoring” young people that results in mass exodus from journalism and a loss of faith in the ideals of the profession. We are accused of lacking interest, insufficient dedication to the job, and of being superficial in understanding the media environment that “golden-age veterans” forged in their own beginnings. However, what is excluded from the equation are the circumstances in which they operated, and how profoundly different those circumstances are from today. The trust that the generations now leading all relevant media outlets in Croatia earned was shaped in wartime conditions during the 1990s. Editorial benevolence and the lack of resources at the time resulted in sending unprotected and inexperienced journalists into dangerous zones. Severe violations of workers’ rights in the 1990s—and today—are probably the only things that connect that period to the present. In extraordinary situations, such as wartime and the early post-war years, people naturally turn to the media; trust and the need for verified information are then at their peak because information comes directly from the source. How did people view the media then, and how do they view them today? How does information circulation even function now, what content—and in what way—does the average 50-year-old, the most common demographic group, consume? The media landscape, globally and locally, has changed so drastically that comparing generations of journalists (see the episode of Sindikalni megafon) is pointless if we pretend each generation operates in vitro, stripped of the context of its time. Although the focus here is not on what journalism is today, nor on the role of big capital, social networks, and algorithms as the invisible hand of the media market, these factors cannot be ignored.
Let us look at the beginnings of Generation X. Editors from HRT’s ivory tower sent young journalists to battlefields. In their early twenties, they were gaining visibility, confidence, and experience that cannot be compared to anything available today. The most “field work” young colleagues now might see is a half-hour vox populi on TikTok trends at the town square. Conveying important information is, by default, the task of the “trusted faces.” Meanwhile, twenty-something-year-olds in the same newsroom work for 3,600 kuna, waiting for a concrete assignment or at least permission to carry out their own proposed stories. Even with permission, it is difficult to do quality investigative work with a quota of about thirty articles a day that need to be rewritten from foreign media. Honestly—does anyone think students enroll in journalism school because they dream of copy-pasting articles? It is not motivating to sit for eight hours processing about fifty texts per shift, formatting them for publication. Who would want to do that long-term, and what kind of professional development does that lead to? How and when is someone who spent five years rewriting supposed to begin producing original content—they know the form of news, but not how to create it. Anyone in journalism for its ideals and for the belief that journalism is a public good is aware that we are not truly practicing it. We are small cogs in the information factory, often even after a decade in the media, led exclusively by editorial policy based on “what gets clicks,” without real autonomy or space for personal development, and with complete disregard for any affinities of the workers. Suppressing journalistic autonomy at a time when all generations are overwhelmed daily by the flood of information is dangerous and irresponsible, and it is surprising that colleagues with decades of experience, fully aware of the changing landscape, still cling to standards of another era. Undeniably, part of the younger generation of journalists simply wants a stable job—perhaps not necessarily to work on big stories—but such people have existed in all newsrooms since the profession began. However, 25-year-olds who enter the media world with degrees and ideals become disillusioned by a system that values and invests only in clicks. They certainly will not stay in a field where the average salary after five years is equal to or lower than an entry-level position at Dubravica or McDonald’s, and several hundred euros less than the national average.
Frequent job changes happen, simplified, because “young” (and not so young anymore) journalists actually want to do—deep, real journalism. At the very least, what they are promised during job interviews and what is stated in their employment contracts. Young journalists do not want “money,” because those focused on money have already moved into PR; instead they seek the following: finding stories, space to analyze social issues and build trust with contacts—experts, relevant sources—going out into the field, and above all—asking provocative questions. From editors, or media companies, they want only a minimum of trust and a few hours a week aside from “core” tasks. This would refresh the media space with a wave of new content, and emerging journalistic talent could establish themselves with minimal editorial guidance by being allowed to work on their own topics. Yet editors—who we know are not Gen Z—are mostly occupied with feeding the eternally hungry algorithm, and mentorship in most newsrooms is a mythical creature we only hear about, and rarely see.
