In mid-September, Gannett—the parent company of USA Today Network—posted two different but analogous writing jobs: a Taylor Swift Reporter and a Beyoncé Knowles-Carter Reporter. Both positions exist to explore each star’s cultural influence, chronicling highlights from their respective world tours to offer readers “an inside view.” Beyond the basic journalism-job credentials, like a bachelor’s degree and a few years of prior experience, the postings also stipulate the candidate’s “willingness to travel extensively”; the preferred “ability to report in more than one language” (they don’t specify which); and, for the aforementioned travel, “a valid driver’s license, reliable transportation, [and] the minimum liability insurance required by state law” (once again, they don’t specify, and the minimums vary). Sure, the rate is potentially decent; the upper end of the listed range puts it at just over $50 (US) an hour. But that rate could also be closer to $20. Nobody seems quite sure.
The lack of pay transparency and the punitive requirements didn’t stop fans from swooning over these jobs—as, perhaps, Gannett had known they wouldn’t, having chosen stars beloved enough to insulate the company from the harshest critiques. The Wall Street Journal estimated that, by the end of September, the hiring team had received about 1,000 résumés for the two gigs combined. (Anecdotally, 500 applications for a single media job is, in this climate, not necessarily the flex they might think it is.) Fellow publications were also relatively uncritical, including CNBC, which fizzed that “one lucky journalist [would] be paid to keep tabs” on Swift, a gig the Guardian touted as a “Taylor Swift fan’s wildest dream” (a riff on one of her song titles). Sure. But journalists have dreams too, and as a more critical strain of responses made clear, this type of gig isn’t it. Gannett, whose chief content officer ambitiously told the Wall Street Journal that these jobs would “save local journalism,” had previously cut back its local news coverage and laid off about 6 percent of its American media division. On social media, writers were quick to point out the contradiction when the job was announced. One deadpan reply read, “Is there a climate change reporter? Just checking.”
