It was probably arrogant and short-sighted of me to think journalism would ever be spared from the outsourcing wave. I’m all for emerging economies, but this is beyond bullshit.
A publisher in Pasadena hired two journalists in India to cover city council meetings via the web. It’s only costing him about $20k. I don’t like outsourcing, for many reasons, this only makes me hate the practice even more.
If, for some reason, you can’t read the article on the LA Times site (I think registration is required), here’s the jist:
James Macpherson, editor and publisher of the Pasadena Now website, hired two reporters last weekend to cover the Pasadena City Council. One lives in Mumbai and will be paid $12,000 a year. The other will work in Bangalore for $7,200.
The council broadcasts its meetings on the Web. From nearly 9,000 miles away, the outsourced journalists plan to watch, then write their stories while their boss sleeps — India is 12.5 hours ahead of Pacific Standard Time.
Still, I bet they’re probably better journalists than the White House press corps. Could be the next stop…
Comments 2
Let’s see. Two reporters living in a country slammed with poverty being paid squat to watch PTA moms in SoCal scream at their councilmen over a shortage of crossing guards outside their kid’s school or the local busybody complaining about the amount of dog poop on the sidewalks downtown. Nice.
Posted 14 May 2007 at 10:45 am ¶Admittedly covering city council is one of the dreariest assignments you could give to an intern. The theory is that the reporter–ensconced in the community–could extrapolate issues that were and weren’t being covered. Then again, an outsider report would free him/her from the fear of being stalked by incensed suburbanites. Heck, maybe this will contribute to less provincialism and a truly free press… and lots of fodder for the “Odd News” section in the Mumbai paper.
And newspaper people wonder why readers have left in droves.
Posted 15 May 2007 at 12:16 am ¶Speak Your Mind