So, you want to be a freelance journalist?
There is a classic story in Martha Gellhorn’s book, The Face of War, where she described taking off to become a war correspondent on the other side of the world with only a few dollars in her pocket, a notepad and suitcase. Gellhorn went on to become one of the best reporters of her generation.
Can people do that now?
Freelance journalists like Matthieu Aikins have proven that it is still possible. Aikins spoke to Evan Ratliff for the first episode of the Longform podcast about how he started his journalism career.
“After school, I set off on your Kerouacian post university phase… I hitchhiked across Canada, I was on a sail boat for a year, I went to Europe, and I was backpacking and freelancing for weeklies and indy magazines that wouldn’t pay anything but run a 6,000 word article… I didn’t have any return ticket, just a dwindling bank account.”
The risk paid off for Aikins, who now writes for Harper’s Magazine, Rolling Stone, the New Yorker, the Atlantic, GQ, Newsweek, Wired, the Walrus, the Guardian, the Globe & Mail, Courier International, and the Caravan. He is also an analyst for various radio and television programmes on issues relating to his reporting from Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East. Aikins’ work has been internationally recognised with a Polk Award, Medill Medal for Courage, the Kurt Schork Award, National Magazine Awards, and prizes from the Canadian Association of Journalists and the Atlantic Journalism Awards. He is an incredible journalist, and should be commended for his courage.
But can every freelance journalist reach the heights of Matthieu Aikins?
You obviously need talent like Aikins, and like I discussed in a previous post, you need money or support. You need cash to be able to hit the road in the first place. The cost of living for a roving freelance journalist has increased, even if you’re living rough, and freelancers can all too often be forced to chase down editors for payment after they’ve submitted their work. The hierarchy, often present in big media organisations, also exists in the freelance world — journalists should be grateful for a chance to just get their work published. They are paid less, at times nothing at all, regardless of the quality and their input into a story. That is a reflection of shrinking budgets, different experience levels, but also because there are so many new journalists entering the industry and veterans are being made redundant, so organisations can get away with paying very little.
“The queue vying for publishing space is long, so we can go to the next person in the line.”
Quality journalism, especially long-form and investigative reporting, costs money. Freelance journalists can be forced to make ends meet another way. For Aikins, it was by entering essay competitions at the start of his career. Some journalists work in other industries to make ends meet or stash money away for their reporting trips, while others apply for journalism grants. But it isn’t uncommon for people applying, as a way to fund a story, to receive a reply saying:
“We are overwhelmed with outstanding proposals at the moment, and the unhappy reality is that we cannot fund them all… But we encourage to you to continue to pursue this worthwhile story.”
But, again, pursuing a worthwhile story requires money. Grants will often go to the same people because they have experience and a track record of delivering a final product. The organisation with the money understandably wants their cash to go to a safe pair of hands that can be trusted. What is the result of that? Upcoming journalists must self-fund their initial runs on the board to gain experience because jobs in the industry are few and far between. But some people can’t afford to pay for story development, and that is the exact reason they apply for grants. This is another factor that hinders the inclusion of diverse voices in the journalism industry, and it confines grant opportunity to the lucky few.
Another example is Screen Australia. A friend explained the funding requirements for documentary development funding. As listed on their website, sole applicants must have at least three eligible credits in the role of producer or director. An eligible credit is a linear documentary which is half hour or longer in duration that has been broadcast by a recognised broadcaster or channel; had a commercial theatrical release; or been invited to screen at IDFA, Hot Docs or equivalent. In the case of teams, one of the key principals must have at least three eligible credits.
Screen Australia states that the intention of this criteria is not to exclude new talent, but encourage them to team up with more experienced people. I can understand the rationale. I have had the good fortune of being a staff employee at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). I have worked with some of the country’s best reporters and producers at Four Corners and the ABC’s radio current affairs division. I have also worked as a casual producer at Channel 4 News, and I can call some of their staff my mentors. I know how beneficial it is to work with the best in the business. It is invaluable. But I have access to the people in the circles that are eligible for the Screen Australia funding because I have a foot in the industry. That isn’t always the case for upcoming talent. The other issue can be that although most senior and veteran journalists are supportive of new journalistic talent, which I can testify to, it’s not uncommon for less experienced journalists to be awarded a smaller credit, if any at all, even if they are the person behind the story. Regardless of Screen Australia’s intention not to exclude new talent, the criteria doesn’t only limit the opportunities for new blood, it can also open the door for people to be taken advantage of.
Another expense for freelance journalists is hostile environment training. It became a talking point when freelance journalists, such as James Foley, were executed at the hands of the so-called Islamic State. These courses are extremely expensive for news organisations, and even more for a freelance journalist. There are initiatives in place to help reduce costs, such as bursary funds and subsidies, but there are so many people applying for them that organisations will often say:
“…the bursary fund has a limited number of places, unfortunately we are unable to offer you one at the moment. You have been, however, put on our waiting list, therefore should any new bursaries become available throughout the year we will get back to you.”
This means that journalists are forced to take risks to report a story to meet living costs, or put their career on hold until they are in a position to pay for their hostile training course. No one should take the risk of entering a hostile environment without the proper training.
There are positives to being a freelance journalist. It gives you creative freedom and can stop a journalist from feeding the 24-hour newscycle. You can pick a topic or beat, and work it, network, follow your nose, and take time to develop the best and insightful stories. But journalism is in trouble –for organisations, staff reporters, and freelance journalists. It’s not only the problem of news organisations struggling to make money in the digital age, but these challenges are locking out diverse voices from the industry.
