I really don’t believe that newspapers WANT to pay less. All logic and recent events would lead to the obvious conclusion that newspapers HAVE TO pay less. We’ve all been an audience to staffs being cut, revenues being down, etc. As newspapers are dying, why would they “cut off their nose to spite their face?”

Those aren’t wild generalizations, though. Not too long ago, most newspapers were claiming people “needed experience.” That has changed, but not for the right reasons.

In my book, that means twentysomethings are unqualified for the jobs they get. The standards have been lowered, not raised.

That being said, I do think it’s positive that good people don’t have to waste time and skills at tiny, terrible papers. But let’s get one thing straight: That has changed only because newspapers want to pay less. I’ve read all the rationalizations and the B.S. from newspaper execs. Those sound much like the chantings that led this intern to say “You go girl!” (Comma missing from original cheerleading.)

I saw that blog post as praise of someone’s willingness to do something to change journalism more than the specific plan itself.

If we’re going to talk about naivete, I think her main naivete was expecting that journalists would take her post considering the good intent with which she wrote it — she’s passionate about journalism.

I don’t think she’s naive at all about that now.

But I think you’ve made several good points, John. I would like to reiterate that I do understand how hard the environment is right now and that I know it’s a sensitive and scary time for newspapers.

Bunker down, everyone. No working together, people. Forget about those ideas for new reporting methods and sustainable business models. Top priority: There are enemies within!

I said Jessica’s post was naive because of how easily and quickly she seemed to buy the company line about the layoffs and the plan for change, which is especially disturbing for a journalist in training, since journalists are supposed to be able to see through the BS and get at the truth. Let me ask you this: If you were writing a story about layoffs at a factory and the manager of the factory, who just handed out 10 pink slips, tells you that he has a plan that’s the right step for turning it around, would you buy his story hook, line, and sinker? Or would you do some critical analysis and research and investigate his claims before praising him? And considering that he was in charge of the previous direction of the factory which led to the financial disaster that cost 10 people their jobs, would you call him a hero?

Yes, in some cases claims of naivety has to do with age, but it’s more about experience. You can be in this business for 20 years and be fortunate enough to not go through a layoff, which could make you just as naive as an intern who has never been through one.

The comments on Jessica’s blog show a definite split along age lines, with veterans mostly taking issue with her fawning over an editor who just laid off people and younger journalists mostly dismissing those criticisms as coming from dinosaurs despite not knowing any of the people who offered those criticisms. What’s more disturbing is that despite having almost 100 comments as of now, there is almost no substantive discussion of the actual criticisms. Instead of the two sides reaching across the battle line to discuss their viewpoints, they are pretty much just deepening the line in the sand, bunkering down in their respective corners, and trading verbal barbs. From that perspective, it seems that the “dinosaurs” and the “naive kids” are more alike than either would admit.

That’s because I’ve had this argument time and time again, and it generally boils down to people who are getting opportunities they likely don’t deserve trying to claim they are so much smarter. So although the “you” may not mean you personally, it does fit many other people in the same category.

I also never claimed I could save journalism. I only want to be part of the effort.

And I specifically chose not to comment on the content of Jessie DaSilva’s post — I thought it would dilute my argument, which is that you can’t completely discount her points based on naivete, whether or not you disagree with her.