Ashton, D 2015, ‘Making Media Workers: Contesting Film and Television Industry Career Pathways’, Television & New Media, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 275-294.

This article provides an analysis of the role of the runner as an entry-level route into film and television production. Throughout Ashton refers to existing studies, situating his work within a body of existing research. This article is a study conducted on a number of students working within the industry in the runner position and also those currently undertaking higher education courses. Providing scope to the collected data Ashton employs anecdotal evidence from professionals that began work as runners before ascending the traditional production hierarchy. The first part of the article discusses runners in relation to industries production cultures whilst also addressing the labour market conditions. In the subsequent three parts, the focus is upon the desirable characteristics and dispositions associated with working as a runner alongside analysis of the student interviews. A great deal of emphasis is placed upon the varied and often competing perspectives upon careers pathways provided by the students. This articles proved to be useful as a means of analysing the alternative to working as a freelancer. There are numerous similarities with the role of runner and that of the freelance media worker including job insecurity and the tendency for some work to go unpaid. There are also vast differences, namely the fact that a runner has a clear position within a production hierarchy and that they answer those directly above them. The article is useful for analysing various ways that media graduates can find work in the media industry beside becoming a freelance worker. The analysis provided by this study is somewhat limited by its specificity to Britain. It might be of benefit to investigate whether this trend is consistent across other nation’s media industries and in particular in Australia.

Dunscombe, R 2013, ‘The past, the present, and the future’, Screen Education, vol. 72, pp. 1-5.   

Hamilton, C 2011, ‘The Exposure Economy’, Overland, no. 202, pp. 88-94.

Hamilton provides an overview of the position of freelance writers within Australia’s media industry. Her contention is that although the digital revolution in publishing and communication has liberated writers from their struggles with the monopoly structure of production and consumption, the work offered by the internet is no more independent of capitalist processes than traditional counterparts. Hamilton seeks to identify the true worth of working for exposure and whether this is sufficient for people in relation to sustaining a career. Although the article is particularly focused upon writers, the practise of working for exposure is widespread and commonplace for other freelance media workers.  The Article is quite critical of the practice even discussing its publications use of the model for its website. This inclusion illuminates how widespread and the transparent the practise is, particularly in relation to digital content. Rather than referring to any studies or other journal articles, the piece instead focuses upon anecdotal evidence, quoting writers that have worked in this fashion. There is also the utilisation of some statistics complied by the Australian Bureau of statistics. However, the figures quoted were from 2007 and with the rapid technological progress in the last nine years these figures may be vastly different, even in 2011 when the article was first published. Hamilton concludes that the absence of organisation and regulation in freelance work is both the cause and the outcome of its individualisation, with working hours and conditions largely beyond scrutiny, and inequities that are routinely personalised and internalised. Although not the entirety of the article is relevant to the whole industry, this closing statement is consistent with many other articles that discuss freelance workers.

Ronalds, P 2010, ‘In the Industry: On the Job: The Case for Industry Placements’, Screen Education, vol. 59, pp. 36-39.