News-Record.com

I'm sure some old-timers will scoff, but I think this is a simple and brilliant way to separate the wheat from the chaff. Going back to an earlier time, it's like determining that an applicant for a newspaper job doesn't read newspapers.

I'm constantly amused by journalists (fortunately, fewer by the day) who boast that they don't deign to read blogs. Of course, it's always fun then to ask if they read the Romenesko media blog. "Of course!" they say—and their blustery anti-blog attitude crumbles.

It's not so much that there's great magic in writing a blog—it's just another publishing tool, in my book—but it certainly reveals a lot about their comfort and facility with the Web and new media. It also is very revealing about what their raw writing skills are like, as you point out.

On the digital side, especially, we need people who are "native speakers" or as fluent as possible in the new ways of presenting information and interacting with readers. There's no question they're more qualified if they've walked the walk, talked the talk and blogged the blog.

Blogs are the modern diary....

Writers must write daily, if not on their blog, then where? It amazes me that students believe that they can be writers when they don't write for fun or as a hobby.

Where are the teachers on this? I remember that I was required to keep a journal and write in it several times a day. What are students being asked to do today? Apparently, nothing!

I might hire a writer who doesn't blog, but I agree with JR and Mark -- it helps separate the job applicants.

Not everyone needs a diary; not everyone has something to say worth posting on a blog. I'd give points to a Web site's regular contributor or, better yet, to someone who created and maintains a web site. The same principle extends to photographers (where's the online gallery of your work?) and designers.

In screening job applicants, we might turn around Howard Owens' list:

1. Do you have a blog? What's it about?
2. (a) Can you operate a digital camera and (b) have you posted photos to Flickr or other online site? (Negative points for photos showing yourself drunk, undressed or picking your nose.)
3. (a) Have you shot digital video and (b) have you posted a video on YouTube? (Negative points, see #3.)
4. How much time do you spend watching YouTube? (Minus points if you admit watching at work. Double-minus if you say you never watch it. Triple minus if you're lying.)
5. Are you in a social network such as MySpace or Facebook? (Bonus points for a LinkedIn profile. More bonus points if you'll take part of your salary in Linden dollars.)
6. Do you share links socially? Can you hand code a link? (Bonus points for contributing to del.icio.us or Digg. Minus points for the TheHun or iXtractor.)
7. Do you use RSS? Does your blog provide RSS?
8. Do you do texting? (Bonus points if you can touch-type with a cell phone in your pocket or purse. Minus points if you answer "wOOt!" instead of "yes." Double bonus points if you immediately text yS to my cell or gmail account.)
9. Are you in a Twitter group? (No penalty for saying no. Minus points if you don't know what Twitter is.)
10. Have you created a mashup in Google Maps, Platial, Acme, etc.)?
11. Do you read JR's blog?

Anyone with a year's experience as a journalist and six or more yes answers gets hired (but plan to teach him or her the others) unless the applicant says "no" to #11.

Thank goodness I'm not applying, Steve. (At least not right now!)

Don't beat yourself up, John. At least you know what I'm talking about. We've got too many editors in the business now who wouldn't understand the questions, let alone the answers, and what's worse, like some of the non-blogging job applicants, they don't care.

A great writer may not blog due to not being paid.

Why work for free?

Good comments all the way around. Since I've been on the job hunt since June (yikes!), I've been telling interviewers that I blog...even going so far to say that I'm running for school board this year. There are a lot of unemployed writers in this town (and a lot more unemployed teachers too)!

of course, if I don't find a job soon, I'm going to be slinging bags out at PTI for $9 an hour!

Of course job candidates should be reading your blog. That's simple preparation for the interview.

I'm sure it helped me when I came in for an interview.
Of course, I didn't get the job the first time around. That's news that I also would never have received if it weren't for reading the blog (and seeing who the reporter you did hire was).

So there's two incentives for job candidates to read an editor's blog.

I'm teaching journalism at a major university this year after 30 years as a newspaper reporter and editor. I'm asking all of the students in my classes to blog. Last semester, I was amazed at the number who had never blogged before. I've been telling them that learning how to use another storytelling platform is critical to their success as future journalists. Your post on hiring reinforces my point. Thank you for saying it.

I'm not quite an old-timer, and I've blogged more words than anyone can count, but I'm going to scoff here.

The thing we journalists have to remember in this day and age isn't the latest way to absorb news. We have to remember that people have choices. Just today, I saw demonstrations of a couple of technologies that may be every bit as important to newspaper survival than a blog. Would you hold it against an applicant if he or she hadn't seen that?

I'd argue that the continuous news updates you're carrying these days are more important to your site than the blogs. They're also much more visible on your site, as they should be. You know I like this blog and several others here, but I don't think it's the most important thing you have going.

The best applicant will be someone who can go through your blogs and tell you which ones are worthwhile ... and which ones aren't. A lot of journalists are blogging for the sake of blogging, and they're not learning anything from the process because fellow journalists just say "Cool -- you have a blog!" rather than giving them honest feedback.

Besides, pet questions are a good way to miss talent. In my N&R days, a hiring editor I won't name here used to ask a pet question: "Do you consider yourself a writer or reporter?" It was a dumb, pointless question. And it cost the N&R some good people.

I'm with Beau.

The first thing I would look for on a fellow reporter's blog is whether there's any reporting going on or if it's just a list of opinions.

What I like about blogging is it allows me to be more "me" than I can in news stories and talk with other people about ideas.

Today I posted an entry comparing my tour of a tony private school with my friend's visit, on the same day, to one of the most troubled public schools in New Orleans. The entry was 40 percent me and 60 percent him.

Still, I'm amazed at the number of reporters I know who don't seem interested in using technology. And if I was looking for young talent, I wouldn't have much time for applicants who felt that way.

But "how much time do you spend watching youtube?" C'mon.

The question about blogs has two purposes: It lets me know if I can read the candidate's unedited writing, if I can see how they interact with commenters, and if I can make some judgment about the tone and voice of their writing.

It also inevitably leads to a discussion about the candidate's receptivity/embrace of new technology. If they said, "I find blogs to be old school; I prefer Twitter." That would tell me something about the candidate. If they said, "I don't blog, but I comment on a bunch of blogs." That would tell me something else about the candidate. If they said, "I don't blog but I read a couple dozen blogs," that would tell me something else again. And if they said, "I think blogs are a bunch of self-absorbed postings and a waste of time," that would tell me something.

The answer to that question isn't an automatic knockout. It's like every question should be -- insight into the person who wants to work here.

The distinction I'd draw -- and I may have drawn it at some point on the Online-News list, possibly arguing with Howard Owens and others -- is that it's more important to demonstrate the *aptitude* to learn a new technology than it is to be an unquestioning embracer of whatever's new at the time.

From my college paper to my early days at USA TODAY, I learned more than 10 publishing systems, including the pagination system we tried and junked at the N&R in the mid-90s. (Holy cow, that thing was horrible.) That's the reality of the business.

I have two fears in putting so much emphasis on blogs and everything else that has come into vogue in the past five years. First, some of it might not stick around. We were all told a decade ago that "push" technology was the wave of the future. A couple of years ago, it was podcasts. The jury is still out on the latter, but I'm not convinced the actual "pod" part of the deal is so important. I'd rather use the BBC's awesome online radio player than subscribe to a bunch of BBC podcasts.

Second, plenty of avid bloggers and blog readers would be excellent journalists, but many more would not. Bloggers aren't necessarily good interviewers, and they may be more interested in a pithy opinion than a sober, detailed budget breakdown.

Sure, it's a valid question as long as you're not using it as a litmus test. But I'd emphasize that it simply can't hold too much weight in the interview.

Of course, my first employer asked me if I ever tinkered with clocks. I still have no idea what he was getting at with that one. I felt like I was in "Airplane."

No, it's not a litmus test in and of itself, but it is both a direct and indirect way to get some insight into how a person uses with both technology and his or her audience. Perhaps that is the "aptitude" indicator you refer to.

If the candidate doesn't blog and doesn't indicate much understanding of blogging that holds weight in my mind. Blogging has been around long enough for journalists to "get it" even if they don't do it.

If the journalist is awaiting the technology that will be "the answer" and then they will learn it, then the wait will be long.

I remember a time when in journalism school (UNC, less than two years ago) we were told personal blogs were a breach of ethics. All real journalists that I talk and associate with pretty much agree. Why do my readers care if I watched the Golden Globes?

Seriously, get off your blogging high horse.

I've been in so many newsrooms where blogging is against company policy. The N&R is one of the very few news outlets that put blogs above real journalism.

I waffled in the beginning, because I think some reporters write differently in their blogs. I know I do.

That's both good and bad. Sometimes they can be inappropriately snarky. Language for the Web is looser, writers use more slang. You've got to keep an audience. But sometimes sarcasm in blogs can lead to questions of objectivity.

On the other hand, I think the Web offers us a forum to loosen our ties a little, be creative and try new things. Sometimes a writer can find her true voice in a blog, a style that she's afraid to let shine in the paper. In that way, I think the practice of writing short and punchy for the Web is actually a good writing exercise. It warms up your creativity and gives you a forum to try something new, edgy, different.