COLUMN: Do away with non-competes in journalism
For the past year, a former employer has prevented me from reporting for a number of news outlets, dealing a personal financial hit and a tremendous disservice to the public. This practice should end.
***
From the outset, I must say that writing this column makes me deeply uncomfortable. I do my best to refrain from expressing personal policy views (as I believe all reporters should) and pride myself on not becoming a story.
However, I also have to square that with my firm belief that a reporter’s job is to hold individuals and institutions accountable for their actions.
So this column (the first I’ve written in more than six years) isn’t about personal animus or achieving some legislative policy solution. It’s about reporting for the public good and championing a better news ecosystem— something we should all be able to get behind as a divisive 2024 election approaches.
***
Today marks a special day for me. Effective immediately, no former employer has any say over what I can report on, where I can report from or who I can report for.
For the past 12 months, I’ve been severely limited in my ability to cover North Carolina politics due to a non-compete clause. It’s the reason you haven’t seen me at the State Capitol, at news conferences or on television very much.
While many news organizations limit their non-competes to a handful of places and similar mediums, seven outlets in and around Raleigh had been barred from accepting my work this past year. My blacklist included a number of television stations, news websites, a newspaper and even newsletter services (Believe me, the list would’ve been much longer without pushback).
Not only has this come at a substantial personal financial cost, it has more importantly dealt a blow to readers, viewers and listeners seeking out the latest happenings in North Carolina politics.
Non-compete provisions are commonly used both in and outside journalism. Their stated aim: To give employers the ability to invest in talent while protecting the company’s assets and interests. The actual aim: To stymie the competition and keep disgruntled employees far away.
If you are a young or aspiring journalist, you already have little leverage to negotiate contract terms at the time of your hiring. And if you want to work in television, you will almost definitely need to agree to a non-compete in order to be hired.
In the news media, there are all too many applications for too few jobs, creating a power imbalance from the outset. The positions that are created are often ones filling coverage gaps left by people who no longer work there. This makes non-competes all the more predatory.
The use of non-compete clauses is a subject of much debate. Businesses understandably want to protect their interests, while employees naturally want flexibility and mobility. The inherent tension has prompted national discussion and fueled some states, such as New York, to reevaluate their employment rules.
Nationally, the Federal Trade Commission is considering a ban on non-compete clauses in employment agreements altogether. In California, Colorado, Minnesota, North Dakota and Oklahoma, virtually all non-competes are already banned.
But in North Carolina, businesses are given wide latitude to operate as they want and are free to create broad non-compete “agreements.”
While there’s a larger debate to be had about non-competes in agriculture, health care and a number of job sectors that advance important public needs, doing away with non-competes in news media should be a no-brainer.
Public trust in news media is already low, and forcing reporters to abandon communities they’ve long served or want to continue serving doesn’t help. The public demands journalists be able to do their jobs without the undue influence of their company’s executives.
News outlets that publicly espouse values of free speech and public access to information ought to first look in the mirror and embrace those values from within. Anything less is grossly hypocritical. If they won’t get rid of non-compete provisions on their own, the public ought to demand that they do.
If you truly don’t want your reporters leaving for a rival outlet, I have some solutions: Pay your staff fairly, don’t mistreat them and create a healthy environment they won’t want to leave. Too many reporters excel in spite of their working conditions, not because of them. Making life at least moderately tolerable is often enough for reporters to stay.
As much as the public believes reporters are elite, most aren’t. Many live paycheck to paycheck. Many work long hours. Many miss holidays with loved ones.
It’s often a thankless job, with public criticism ranging from substantive critiques of their framing of a story to shallow attacks on their physical appearance. We don’t do this job for money, likes or fame. We do it because we believe it matters. And in exchange, we merely ask for basic decency.
As frustrating as 2023 was, it’s not lost on me that I am one of the lucky ones.
I’ve had the ability to take a financial hit this year. I’ve had the ability to fight it out and stay in Raleigh. I’ve had sources who have continued to talk to me, not for an audience size, but because they trust me to tell their stories fairly and accurately.
As unfair as I believe non-competes are in journalism, I’ve abided by the terms. Nearly all of my reporting went on a Substack newsletter I created, with net proceeds from the past year going to charity. And the outlets I have reported for were ones not subject to any non-compete provisions.
As we enter 2024 and vow to change things about ourselves, let’s resolve to do one thing: Make news ecosystems better for reporters and, by extension, the public.
I love North Carolina, the people of this great state and I’m not going anywhere.