When I started my graduate program at Mizzou, there was this idea in J-school that journalists needed to specialize in something, become an expert in whatever field they were hoping to cover. For instance, you want to cover the Religion beat of a daily paper, maybe you should minor in religious studies. Want to cover government? How about a second major in political science? Built into the J-school was a major specifically for people who wanted to cover agricultural news. I remember being told that employers were looking for journalists who not only could report and write on deadline but were already experts in whatever they would be covering.
I did not heed this advice because I wasn’t sure what I wanted to cover. There was the obvious things I was just interested in myself — decorating, books, movies, food — that I would have loved to write about in some magazine. Then there was the practical job choice — city magazines. But I didn’t know which city I wanted to live and work in, and I definitely wasn’t going to limit myself to the ones that I was an “expert” on. And this leads into the greater issue. What’s so wrong about learning about the subject as you do the job? We’re journalists. Aren’t we supposed to be fast learners? Our whole job is to research, think critically on our feet and problem solve like crazy. Surely, if we have the basic reporting, writing and technical skills already down, we can learn a subject as we cover it.
Not having a specialty allows you two advantages as a journalist, I think. First, often, if you’re working for a general publication, you’re readers are going to be everyday people who have a range of educational backgrounds and knowledge of the subject you’re writing about. I believe experts can fall into the trap of assuming people understand their jargon and the basics of their fields. If a journalist isn’t an expert in what they are covering then they can ask the same “stupid” questions their readers will be asking. The other benefit I see is that a journalist without a specialization may be more flexible in what beat they cover. That’s not to say that someone who has specialized can never cover something different, but they may be less compelled to since they spent all this time, energy and sometimes money pursuing a specialization. They could also face getting trapped in their specialization by their editors.
On the flip side, my job search strategy had me applying to any and all journalism jobs that I was qualified to do, which led me to some companies and publications that I only had a vague inclination in their subject. Sitting in interviews for those jobs was difficult because the potential employers didn’t seem to buy the idea that I could learn the subject on the job or they just didn’t want someone they would have to teach.
In my new job, my first journalism job I’ve gotten paid for, I don’t have any previous knowledge about the industry I’m covering. Some of the articles can be very technical and scientific. But I’m learning. And my sources love it that I don’t know anything. They love that my ignorance allows them to be the expert and talk endlessly about their passion.
I’m not sure either gives you an edge in today’s job market, especially in journalism right now, but I’m glad that I chose not to specialize.
