Q: I've been a reporter at a small Bay Area daily for about three years and feel I'm ready to move on to a bigger paper. Unfortunately, I haven't had much success in the job hunt these past few months.

Now, some colleagues are saying I just need to pick up, move to a new city, pound the pavement, and see what turns up. Here's my question: If two job candidates are roughly equal in experience and talent, do you think recruiters and editors are more inclined to hire the one living in their city over the one applying from a remote location? Also, are employers more likely to hire a job seeker who is already employed compared with someone who is jobless?

San Francisco

A: Good questions.

First of all, I rarely see two people who are so evenly matched. There's usually some differentiation. Location, though, can be one of those differentiating factors. Smaller papers could balk at a distant, though closely matched candidate because of moving costs. Any newspaper could prefer a candidate who seems to have local roots, which can imply local knowledge and some connections that might imply a longer stay.

On Question Two, though it may seem unfair, I think newspapers do prefer to hire people who are working over those who aren't. Certainly, you'll have more questions to answer about why you're not in a job than if you're in one. One of those questions will have to do with whether you were fired; another will have to do with commitment.

Hang in there and keep trying. You're looking to make a move in a tight economy, so don't get down on yourself. The problems may have everything to do with the newspapers, and not with you.

Given this hiring climate, I'd be concerned for you if you just quit your job and moved to a new city without a job. It could mean disaster for your career and your bank account. But, then, a lot of that will depend on your personal finances -- and I'm the cautious type.