Uh-oh, that'll be me then. I actually agree with much of what you say here, of course spoonfeeding in general can be totally pointless - and many, many people will try and fail to make a decent living at freelance journalism. But to suggest that helping them in the early days is heartless is way off the mark.
Anyone with a 'how difficult can it be?' attitude doesn't actually necessarily get an easy ride over at the forum you so keenly shine your light on.
The 'professional assistance' you mention does not raise false hopes. The editors who have contacted writers direct through the forum are surely testament to that? (I've had a fair bit. Is that okay?)
Keep smiling.

Les, I'm beginning to think you're either taking the piss or you're truly living in years gone by and sending this into the future for us all to mock. That's the case, isn't it? It's not the students and everyone else starting out that are being mocked, it's you. Although we don't really know who you are - I don't know about who's the wimp, but at least we're posting under our real names. More than you're doing.

Sorry, you're obviously a big, bad editor somewhere in his big office in London. I'll obviously never work for you now. Shame.

Here at journalism.co.uk we get a lot of emails from people seeking advice about careers in journalism. I try to respond when I can, and when I do I always prefix my responses with the warning that I am not qualified to give career advice.

Our own freelance journalism email discussion list (http://www.freelancejournalism.com) is, of course, aimed primarily at practising freelance journalists and is not intended to be a careers advice forum. That said, there are people on the list with varying degrees of experience and it is, in my view, a positive thing if the more experienced members share the benefit of their wisdom with those just starting out in their careers.

Personally, I am not comfortable with rudeness of the kind Les Hack suggests. But frankness does have its place. In the real world of journalism, you will probably get a lot worse than you will on any internet forum and it is, after all, only advice. Take it or leave it.

Part of what drives a lot of successful journalists is a kind of arrogance and you can be sure that many have ignored a lot of advice, good or bad, throughout their careers.

I've written for most of the quality newspapers and many magazines. Yes, I've had the odd editor be rude to me - but it's no tougher than any other job I've done in this respect and 99% of the editors I work for are decent. And last year I earned three times what I would have earned in my former profession. Hardly 'selling a few stories'! Like it or not Les, journalism has changed. Gone are the days when the only route to success was doing out your time on a regional as a cub reporter. There are so many more opportunties for writers to be published and a lack of formal training doesn't deter people from having a go and many do so very succesfully - something which clearly doesn't sit well with some'old school'journalists. Well intentioned their advice may be, but it always sounds like sour grapes to me. It's almost as if these grumpy old hacks are thinking 'we'll tell them it's too difficult so the won't bother and there'll be more work for us..' which is a short sighted and childish approach.

Dear Aunty Jan

Thank you for your collection of random thoughts. It is good to know that you're amazingly successful, work for nice editors, earn three times a teacher's salary, think that journalism has changed, have spotted that cub reporting isn't the way into the industry, and think that older hacks are short sighted and childish.

While you've declared your baggage, you haven't done much to address the central question. Is it kind or cruel to create an online community that implies that a career in freelance journalism is open to almost anyone who fancies it?

This is a question focused, not on the soaraway successes (such as yourself), but on the ones who are not going to make it. They will be the majority of your 1300 users.

Personally, I think it is cruel. It breaks my heart to look at your site and see so much enthusiasm, so many youthful energies, so many aspirants hoping to break into the industry, all strung along by nice, friendly, supportive online colleagues into a cosy delusion of a dream that will end in failure. I don't know what will happen to them all - just that one day, or gradually over time, their hopes will fragment, reality will dawn and they will drift off and do something else.

What you are doing is not unusual. It happens a lot in other industries - such as stage or modelling - where the supply of aspirants far outweighs the industry's demand for them. There are plenty of agencies and trainers willing to take the money from hopefuls, give them an entry to the industry, introduce them real practitioners, offer advice, encouragement and a watchful eye. That most fail doesn't fundamentally matter to you. You can trumpet the few successes, and there will always be more punters to replace the ones who've struggled and burnt out.

My question of course is - is it ethical? Your answer, as you've previously mentioned, is that you don't do ethics.

Les

No I don't think it's cruel to run a community that helps people get a foot in the door if that's what they want, but I do think you - like some of your colleagues - have a massive chip on your shoulder.

End of story.

I do think the difference is that Jan never implies you can make a sole living out of it. I do think it is okay to encourage aspirants and non-professionals to try out to write occassionally as a freelance as long as they know that in order to be successfull as a freelance you might need to go through the whole trainee reporter staff journo years to build up contacts and reputation.

I do like reading articles by non-professionals as for example in the Guardian, they do not only provide fresh and creative ideas but also sometimes a complete disregard for keeping to the usual rules,forms and conventions.

Not that it is particularly good or bad, it is just nice to have a lot of variety.

I do think Jan's forum is quite successfull as a lot of members and most people on this world appreciate a friendly, helpfull and welcoming atmosphere.

I would though prefer a forum like this to be hosted by NUJ or a journalist association because I do think the rules, terms and conditions are longterm clearer, certain and more reliable for the participants.

Also, back to the question: I have seen that NUJ will offer "freelance for beginners" courses in June, too.

Also you haven't answered my first question:
Are you a member of the IWW (sounds a bit like "Goodnight and Goodluck") and do you use the Sabcat logo to imply that your aim is to sabotage?
What would you want to sabotage and why?
And why would you not try to sabotage the system more than attacking fellow individuals?

Come on and show us how to sabotage the issues that really matter: the sacking of more and more journalists from the staff room whilst the rest of the employed journos are worked to death on minimum wage!

Rage against this injustice for a change, the profits of multinational news companies and the anti-union attitude of News International, before having a go at somebody who tries to survive and tries to offer an alternative to the sacked, layed-off and in future unemployed newbies!

So how ethical is that on your part?

Steady Les. You're not there yet, but many more remarks implying people are on free rides at the expense of their punters could be interpreted as lowering a person in the estimation of right-minded people...

"Libel can be proven even when the plaintiff is referred to indirectly. The tests of defamation include: hatred, ridicule or contempt; causing the subject to be shunned or avoided; 'lowering a person in the estimation of right-minded people'; and implying a lack of qualification, knowledge, skill, capacity, judgment or efficiency to conduct business. Malicious falsehood means the publication of a false statement that damages a person."

Are you a member of the IWW (sounds a bit like "Goodnight and Goodluck") and do you use the Sabcat logo to imply that your aim is to sabotage?

Sorry. I forgot to answer this. No. Nothing to do with sabcat. It is a cat with raised hackles. I didn't draw it and don't know who did. But I was very pleased to see it when it turned up. It could be a stray that has adopted me. It happens

I used to have a pair of sabots, but I think they are lost in the cupboard under the stairs. If I find them, I'll wear them for writing and let you know how it goes.

On the substantive point - I can't make a lot of sense of collective action as a freelance. In theory it seems odd. I'm not a wage slave, I just sell what I write. And in practice it is no better. See the first entry on this blog - http://www.hackles.co.uk/archives/000147.html

Finally, Saint Jan does not have a monopoly on helping newbies. Even I have a bunch of testimonials from people I've helped - grateful for advice and assistance. It's how to help that is the issue. As I've said, I don't think giving false encouragement & pretending everything is sweetness and light is particularly helpful. And a lot of us prefer to do our charitable helping quietly, and away from the limelight. And for free.

Les

And a lot of us prefer to do our charitable helping quietly, and away from the limelight.

Not to worry, though, Les, you're getting your 15 minutes of fame at last, eh? When you go back to your usual blogging, the comments section should at least reduce to its normal level of single figures... or zero.

Re: Sabcat - do you mean this lot?

http://contrarytoauthority.blogspot.com/2005/02/sabcat.html

It's a similar logo but entirely a coincidence, I'm sure.

What a pity it is not the sabcat of the IWW. Les Hacks would have got a lot more sympathy from me then.

I just like underdogs who have a go at fighting lost struggles against authority.

This is a very interesting debate and in my opinion is being very well handled by Les.
I think the main thing to take from this is that everybody has a different viewpoint, and - as the saying goes - you can't keep all of the people happy all of the time.

Journalists take a variety of forms. On the one hand you have the optimists who by and large can be seen on Ms Murray's site, and on the other hand you have regular hacks who just get on with the job, keep their heads down, take whatever flak is thrown at them then go home to kick the cat. I reckon those people are the real journowimps because they don't fight back for whatever reason. If you had a third hand you'd find the people who are attracted to our site, http://www.news-monkey.com. They, again in my opinion, are the realists. Because they are kind to animals they prefer to talk among themselves and seek support from their peers in what is a pretty harsh industry. In doing so they bitch, they swear and they slag their employers off something rotten.
I believe in the live-and-let-live addage, but I also believe that people should voice their opinions (and criticisms) wherever they see fit which is where both forums as well as this blog come in. At least they aren't corporate-owned and constantly squeezed by the men in suits (like HTFP is), which means they reflect reality as perceived by ordinary journalists who post on them. I can't speak for Ms Murray, but I know news-monkey.com doesn't turn away those who wish to voice their opinions, even if they clash with ours. That's why we allow unregistered guests to read all of the forums and post in a special section.
My point is that although this blog is attracting criticism from those protecting their interests, everybody who replies to it is doing exactly what they should be doing with regards to journalism - discussing it. There may be a little vitriol here and there, but when you boil away all of the details it's a good thing.

To reply to this particular part of the blog, and to give my honest opinion, I think Ms Murray's site could indeed be perceived as 'cruel' because of the cosy atmosphere it exudes. I don't think it IS cruel, however, I think it serves a purpose for those people looking for gentle support and encouragement. However I think it can only help people who are making a change from more regular journalism and who already know the score. People who come in to the industry blind and think they can make a fortune by happily tapping out their experiences will be disappointed if they buy in to the comfortable armchairs and fluffy cushions Ms Murray provides. Those people will quickly come upon a reality check and will be licking their wounds before they know what's hit them. Maybe that's where the perceived cruelty lies.

To big-up news-monkey.com, I honestly believe we provide this bit of Les's post:
"In contrast, being rude to people, pushing them to try harder, encouraging them to build up their own resources, getting them to think before they ask, rubbishing their dafter ideas, correcting their ignorant presumptions, helping them break through the self-consciousness and preciousness that afflict so many wannabe hacks"
Granted, our approach to each other may not be to everyone's taste, but my opinion is that it provides a better view of reality in 'base' journalism - which arguably more people are involved in - than the other site. We are still in our infancy (six-months-old), but with barely any mainstream publicity to speak of we have still managed to attract 220+ members. I accept that many of those people don't post but as with all forums that should change as our membership grows. What I'm saying is that Ms Murray does what is right for her brigade, and we do what is right for ours... horses for courses, innit?

As the person who sparked this post, I'll say this, news-monkey is a laudible and entertaining site and having paid my dues as a miserable so and so for a fair few years, I reckon it's got a great future. But I fundamentally do not agree that JournoBiz is giving anyone an easy ride or that there are any 'brigades' to speak of. On a more basic level I also have to say that I personally am more than a little saddened by what could be perceived as a personal attack on one named individual by an 'anonymous' blogger.

You're kidding right? Where's the personal attack? There's a bit of analysis of the form and function of one particular journo forum run by one person. Les thinks it falls short. Les presents his arguments, as stated on the can, to raise hackles. It works very well. Job done.

No I'm not kidding. Of course we are all entitled to our view and how very wonderful to be maintaining a debate when we all could be getting out more. All I am saying is that there are a couple of comments that I personally find a bit low. For example, a a dig about 'charitable giving' and the reference to 'Saint' Jan. Of course people who go out on a limb to promote themselves and their beliefs are setting themselves up for criticism, quite right too. But for a simplistic character like myself, it gets rather tiresome when the critics then ignore any points raised 'back at them' because they don't suit their point of view and resort to name calling.

Of course we are all entitled to our view and how very wonderful to be maintaining a debate when we all could be getting out more. - Linda.

I'd like to clear this up straight off.

No one should read this blog rather than getting out more.

Getting out more is much better than reading this blog.

Please, for all our sakes, can I ask everyone to promise never to stay in to read this blog when they could be going out.

Thank you.

Les

Les - I've read your post and, well, it's a point of view. But it's a bit like writing a post saying, "Yes, I think anorexic models are a really good idea" or "Stalin - he wasn't such a bad bloke after all" - it goes so against the grain of what anyone else thinks that it seems entirely designed to provoke a lot of outraged responses. In which aim, it has certainly succeeded.

But really, can you hand-on-heart say that it's better to be rude and nasty to people rather than kind and helpful? I mean, it's not honestly going to get a lot of support from anyone other than other embittered hacks, is it?

As Linda pointed out, Journobiz is full of girls, and we have this dreadful tendency to be nice and supportive towards each other. We don't spend all our time comparing the size of our gadgets or making sneering comments at people less successful than ourselves.

Would that it weren't so, but it is.

"...it goes so against the grain of what anyone else thinks..."

Don't speak for all of us, Kim, because I agree wholeheartedly with Les and I'm certainly not an embittered hack. Journobiz is so sickeningly false that it makes me want to vomit.

Fair enough, Chris. I wouldn't dream of speaking for everyone. I know there are still people around who think Stalin was a really great guy, too.

But really, can you hand-on-heart say that it's better to be rude and nasty to people rather than kind and helpful? I mean, it's not honestly going to get a lot of support from anyone other than other embittered hacks, is it? - Kim

There's been a fair bit of agreement with the content of what I'm saying. Not just here, but over at JournoBiz too. And yes, I really can put my hand on my heart and say I think failing to be rude and nasty when it is necessary is a profound disservice and failing.

Here's an example of a request from you-know-where earlier this week:

"Hi all, I need to find the details of a chap who was convicted of sexual abuse recently to sell a story, I know there is a website that has all this and I can't remeber the name! Can anyone help me? S'probably because I don't use it often.

"Thanks loads"

Imagine that request being called out in an open editorial office - which is the nearest real life equivalent to online forums.

Can you, hand-on-heart, say that it is better to take time and care to reply politely and considerately to that person? Wouldn't a succinct and scathing, even hurtful, put-down be kinder and more helpful?

Les

The other response, of course, is simply to ignore it - which, in this case, is exactly what happened.

The other response, of course, is simply to ignore it - which, in this case, is exactly what happened.

...and showed the community to be both unhelpful and wimpish. Which is my point.

Les

Oh come on, Les, that's not your point at all. If people had responded by answering the request, you'd have said that was being wimpish. Ignoring something is in itself a comment, of sorts.

But here I am being suckered into another argument instead of being helpful to my fellow journowimps.

I've been consistent throughout. I don't draw too many conclusions about a forum from individual contributions - that would be selective and manifestly unfair. But the way the community responds is telling. And it's telling me, ho ho, that the ambience of sisterly support insisted on by the founder renders it incapable of helping certain types of wannabe.

It didn't gave that poster the answer she was hoping for. Nor did it help her understand why no one was responding.

Contrast that with the glory days of journalist forums. Think how spectacularly rude and funny contributors of old would have been - and how the robust discussion that followed could have opened the eyes of the poster and helped her review, reflect and take a few more steps forward on her learning journey.

Whereas the journowimps sit there like puddings while she learns nothing. Cruel & cowardly I call it.

Les

The thing is though, Les, that when journalists are being killed, maimed, fired, plagiarised and exploited in every way possible, it's hard to get too worked up about your accusation that Jan is-shock, horror!- killing newbies with kindness and Hobnobs. It's incapable of helping certain types of newbies, you say. Fine, let them go elsewhere to be insulted in a robust, yet spectacularly funny fashion, if they want to be. Either way, being wimpish is hardly the dastardly crime you are making it out to be. I find your blog interesting, especially since I am new to the U.K, but all this constant harping on Journobiz is rather obsessive.

Also, I have had a few inane queries from newbies, whom I have set straight in PMs. I don't believe public humiliation serves any purpose. You obviously don't agree. But let it go already!

The thing is, Kavitha, in a world where journalists are treated worse than shit, we should be standing up for ourselves and trying to change things rather than relaxing in the pink-flock-wallpapered world of Journobiz nibbling biscuits. I think it's the shallowness of the site that Les is sniping at - and quite rightly too.