Journalists=drug-dealers

Journalists are just like drug-dealers. This thought struck me whilst reading Jeremy Paxman's advice to students considering a career in the meeja.

In a broadside on the media, he has branded the industry "underpaid and oversubscribed", and advises that those tempted to join the trade should do something "worthwhile" with their lives. "Television is increasingly dominated by production companies set up by superannuated Marxists and kept afloat by young people willing to work for no pay. Some household-name newspapers are no better. For heaven's sake steer the students of Oxbridge away from the media; there are far too many people clamouring to get in."

He is, of course, entirely right. But what's this got to do with drug-dealers?
Simple.  The labour market for young journalists is like that for young drug-dealers, as described by Steve Levitt (pdf). Workers on the bottom rung earn very little. But there are still loads of people wanting to enter the job. This is because they hope to get the huge rewards that accrue to the handful of people at the top - the boss of a drug gang or the likes of Paxo or Littlecock.
The markets for journalists and drug-dealers are both examples of labour market tournaments. What motivates people are not the rewards for doing the job in itself -  these are low - but rather the rewards for winning.
But who would prefer to enter a risky tournament with skewed rewards rather than a conventional labour market which offers reasonable rewards to skilled people?
Irrational incompetent egomaniacs, that's who.
Ring any bells?

Comments

[dearieme]

Would that be balding, irrational incompetent egomaniacs, by any chance?

[Ajay]

Christopher Hitchens?

[Richard J]

A fairer comparison is between high-class hookers and journos, I think. A working career spent being the confidante of the powerful, only to be chucked into a bitter and penurious retirement once your use to them fades...