"Is Lawsuit Broadcast Intern's Last Stand?"
Television Broadcast (September 1996).

by Steven Daniel Anderson

At it's lowest, the issue has educators and professionals taking shots at each other. Some industry professionals will claim that educators have no real-world experience, teach little of practical value and that an internship is the only place a student can find a meaningful experience. And, some educators will claim that the industry as a whole is taking advantage of students and is concerned with nothing more than profit and the bottom-line. Unfortunately, these positions fail to help the students we both purport to serve.

There are certainly a number of qualified educators with extensive industry experience who can and do teach students how to write, produce, shoot and edit. Similarly, many television stations work hard at mentoring students and could probably operate just fine without taking interns at all.

Furthermore, the argument is not about the value of an internship. Like many educators who left careers in the industry, I took advantage of an internship program in which I was not paid. And, I would do it again, paid or unpaid. I still believe an internship, especially at a small market, is the best path to an entry level job in the business. Many of us can offer testament to what an unpaid internship did for our careers. The value of an internship is almost not debatable.

As I see it, there are really two issues which need to be addressed. The first issue has to do with whether or not stations are providing a real teaching/learning experience for students. A quality internship requires good supervision and some concern about the value a student receives from the experience. Sitting at the assignment desk to answer phone calls, listening to scanners and making copies isn't enough in most educators minds to justify academic credit. While it may be difficult, especially for large market stations, to put an intern to work, it's still possible to create an environment where students acquire important experience.

Yet, experience without criticism or feedback is far from the ideal model either. In some smaller markets, unpaid interns perform work also performed by paid staff. While this at least gives interns a chance to do something meaningful, the idea of doing valued work for nothing reeks of manipulation of the system. These stations may be the worst abusers of eager students.

The second issue has to do with whether or not interns should receive financial compensation. Other businesses pay their interns. In fact, other media enterprises have a far better record than television stations when it come to paying interns. According to Vernon Stone's research at the Missouri School of Journalism, television stations are the least likely to pay. Only 20 percent of television stations polled said they paid interns even minimal compensation; less than even radio stations (25%). (Sixty-four percent of newspapers pay interns at least something). And this is not because television stations are worse off financially. Commercial stations even in smaller markets are profitable enterprises. I simply don't buy the idea that newsroom budgets are so tight that paying interns minimum wage will create a heavy financial burden.

So, why the lack of pay? Perhaps it stems from the fact that there is an overabundance of TV News Wannabees knocking on TV station doors. For this, broadcast educators must share in the blame. We must do a better job of driving home the realities of obtaining an entry-level broadcasting job and work to identify students with aptitude who want television jobs for the right reasons.

Yet, the laws of supply and demand don't eliminate arguments about pay. There is an ethical component as well. Efforts to create a more ethnically diverse newsroom may be hindered when students from mainly well-to-do situations are the ones who can afford to pay for college credit, live away from home and work without pay.

I can't say I know all of the particulars of the Orrantia/KEYT case and don't want to pre-judge. The station argues that it provided proper supervision and obeyed all applicable wage and hour laws. And, it is assumed that Orrantia knew going in that the internship would be unpaid.

So, while I agree with the goal of at least minimally compensating students, I disagree with the filing of the lawsuit to attain the desired goal. I too believe that if the lawsuit is successful, many stations will take a defensive position and scale back their internship programs or eliminate them entirely.

Any changes brought about via compliance (the lawsuit) will likely not have a good long-term effect. Far better would be a situation where stations have an enthusiastic and dedicated commitment to the value of paid internships because they are right for the organization, right for the students and right for an industry trying to attract the best and the brightest from a diverse pool. Positive change must be internalized, not coerced. What is needed is strong leadership and a genuine partnership between both industry and academe. Let's create internship programs that are mutually beneficial. Paying at least minimum wage or even the cost of the college internship credit would in most cases not be a great burden. Most universities allow for interns to be compensated for living and travel expenses while still receiving college credit. The goodwill and symbolic value would be enormous.

I hope that this lawsuit will not cause stations to eliminate important internship opportunities. I'm afraid it may do more harm than good.