<p>competition for AE isn't fierce because it's easier. it's more competitive because this is LA and EVERYONE (minus you) wants to be an entertainment reporter. so thats why AE is so desired. although im sure the relative freedom is also a draw. </p>
<p>and yeah. just see how it goes.</p>
<p>You can also work at the DB and keep a ten foot pole between it and you. What I mean is, never go to social functions, never talk to anyone besides your editor, and turn down at least half the stories they assign you and write like once every 2 weeks instead of twice a week.... then the culture doesn't bug you. I know several writers who have been at DB for years and they write very rarely, and manage to keep their sanity. It's only when you write all the time, they go after you.</p>
<p>Writing all the time, however, is going to be a more realistic professional experience than just working sporadically though. </p>
<p>oh, conundrum.</p>
<p>Basically, journalism sucks, don't do it. Unless you love it. And if you do, no offense, you are lacking common sense :)</p>
<p>...exhibit A ^
jkjk ;)</p>
<p>We'll see where I am next fall, that's all I'll say. Nothing is for sure.</p>
<p>One word: INTERNSHIP.</p>
<p>Seriously. Get an internship.</p>
<p>yepyepyep.</p>
<p>Try any major newspaper (as in newspaper of record), including the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and the WSJ. Also try second-tier papers like SF Chronicle. It might not be bad to look into the EIU, Economist, and NPR internships as well.</p>
<p>"Also try second-tier papers like SF Chronicle."</p>
<p>The Chronicle is not second-tier.</p>
<p>BedHead,</p>
<p>In the sense that it's not considered a newspaper of record (in the broadest sense possible), it is. </p>
<p>First tier American papers (papers of record) are:</p>
<p>NY Times
Chicago Tribune
Boston Herald
LA Times
WSJ
Washington Post
and according to some, the CSM.</p>
<p>The Economist is obviously up there, and may even trump the NYT.</p>
<p>Now, I'm not saying that the SF Chronicle is a bad paper. On the contrary, it's a great paper. But is it a NY Times or Washington Post? I don't know that one can really argue that. Also, keep in mind how much the paper's national and international coverage has dropped in lieu of running AP stories. Its international coverage is nowhere near the level of the NY Times or WP or even the LA Times (which I think is quickly running itself into the second tier as well.)</p>
<p>You forgot "USA Today" :)</p>
<p>USA Today = :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, I'm not saying that the SF Chronicle is a bad paper. On the contrary, it's a great paper. But is it a NY Times or Washington Post? I don't know that one can really argue that. Also, keep in mind how much the paper's national and international coverage has dropped in lieu of running AP stories. Its international coverage is nowhere near the level of the NY Times or WP or even the LA Times (which I think is quickly running itself into the second tier as well.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry UCLAri, I agree with most of what you said and I didn't mean to send you off on a wild goose chase.</p>
<p>The SF Chronicle is not second-tier, in my opinion. It's third-tier. I am amazed that with the readership of the NYT as high as it is, with the numbers of people from the East Coast, with two (or three) of the best universities in the nation there in the Bay Area, etc., the newspaper that is arguably the flagship doesn't try to be better.</p>
<p>I should have made my statement clearer. I appreciate you trying to salve the perceived slight.</p>
<p>The public radio and TV complex in the Bay Area, though, is one of the best.</p>