If the internet kills off traditional journalism by destroying ad revenues and therefore the employers of traditional journalism, then what will the (unpaid) internet re-bloggers use for content?
I am now picturing the future of internet re-bloggers/news aggregators/gossip sites as a whole lot of puppies spinning around, chasing their own tails, briefly interrupted by the odd publicist wielding a rolled up media release to be used as copy by the dizzy puppies.
Let's be clear about HuffPo: they are right not to pay their bloggers. Why? The bloggers, collectively, bring no traffic to the site. Not surprising, considering they are not featured anywhere, certainly not on the home page and barely on the landing pages. Therefore, blogging for HuffPo is purely a vanity exercise, the thrill of seeing your words beneath their logo. Dumenco is right about the real business model of HuffPo, though I would be both more and less generous to them. More, because I don't think all their traffic comes from the exploitation stuff, Rihanna etc. (The fallacy is in thinking that because something is the "top post" it therefore accounts for a large share of the traffic. A post can be a "top post" and account for 2% of the traffic or under.) Their traffic seems to come from taking a story from the NYT or WaPo, giving it a catchier, liberal-friendly headline (here's where they're a liberal Drudge), linking to a 3-paragraph interstitial synopsis stolen from said news organization (here's where I'm less generous than Dumenco), and serving as a platform for comments -- their stories quickly accumulate hundreds. So it's a news aggregation and community play (which the commment-free Drudge would be smart to emulate). You can aptly fault her for stealing content from the Times, Post, etc., but she certainly shouldn't be paying her bloggers -- she's doing them a favor by making their content look like it has had some sort of editorial vetting and lending them her brand.
@Peter Feld: I'm not referring to the few celeb bloggers you do see on the HuffPo home page, but the vast bulk of earnest writers who have a perch there.
@Soup: For what it's worth, being an elder-greeter at Wal-Mart or a data entry slave are not particularly labor intensive either, but both of those jobs pay.
I think when we label writing and journalism (even sad 'party journalism') as useless and not labor intensive, well, that's exactly the kind of product we are eventually going to get.
You always need to pay for quality work. I don't go to a doctor who does it just for the "exposure" or the "experience" of being a physician, and I don't want to read publications staffed by people there for the free food or the guest list.
I agree completely, I think honest work deserves honest pay. My point is about accuracy. Gawker doesn't pay their video interns and they're explicated told not to have editorial aspirations. So Gawker, like GofaG has a staff that is "largely unpaid." as well. Are they both running businesses based upon slave labor? It would be difficult for Gawker to exist without the help of unpaid or underpaid workers.
Gawker pays their writers, but how much, and is it enough to not be considered slave labor?
The devil is all in the details. The details, which when left out can allow you to spin a story in any direction you wish.
My original post in this thread was meant to be sarcastic. I actually think the video interns do important and difficult work. Having to sort through tons of video to find things worth posting is as valuable as actually curating posts for Gawker, in fact it is almost the same thing. Granted you don't need to have the writing skills to write a narrative around it but it is still valuable work that is, as I understand it, unpaid.
This is an excellent piece but people make a lot of assumptions about compensation. For example, I assume that Foster doesn't get paid for this, and he's basically auditioning for the weekend gig. I could be wrong but someone who wants to do a proper job at writing one of these pieces should ask questions or at least attempt to get the answers.
Foster, did you actually bother to interview Rachelle? I'm sure she's not very hard to reach.
@Soup: In which the questioner of facts presents an assumption that is completely incorrect. Not that your assumption is misguided... it's just that... Soup, did you actually bother to interview Foster? I'm sure he's not very hard to reach.
I can confirm independently that GofaG is both largely built on free labor AND does arrange paid freelance gigs for some of their contributors on particular occasions.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go line up for some free bread before it's all gone.
@Soup: If I didn't get paid for this shit, I would be writing this post about what an asshole I was. I HAVEN'T HAD A DAY OFF IN SIX WEEKS. DOES IT SHOW YET?
@Soup: Also, why would I need to quote Rachelle on this? The only question I have about her NYT piece is who's house she's at in the Hamptons, which the NYT totally glazed over. Everything else was pretty much there. Am I missing anything? Serious question. I'm not looking for quotes or for them to defend themselves, this was strictly a: here's what I have, here's what I'm writing. You know who I should've gone to quote for this weekend, though? Sklar.
Because you're making assumptions about how and why Rachelle runs her business rather than asking her yourself. Also, because you've got questions for her, which you could easily ask. Like why can't she pay her people, and if she can, why won't she?
As for getting paid, I hope they are paying you and paying you well. I enjoy your posts here, even if I wished you had contacted the subjects for a quote.
It maintains that everyone is responsible for their own finances.
But an entrepreneur should be embarrassed to have to beg around for free work. It's like bouncing paychecks.
And a worker should be embarrassed to accept an ongoing arrangement, un-negotiated, where their work has zero value. Even more embarrassing if you're someone who's parents built a fortune, and you repay the kindness of their financing your education by continuing to live off their teat while you are a professional unpaid scenester.
I can't even imagine spending an evening with these ridiculous people as they try to impress each other with opinions on politics and the "news business" and whatever awful shit they're reading or listening to.
07/14/09
Hrachelle Hruska
07/05/09
I'll just go...
06/22/09
I am now picturing the future of internet re-bloggers/news aggregators/gossip sites as a whole lot of puppies spinning around, chasing their own tails, briefly interrupted by the odd publicist wielding a rolled up media release to be used as copy by the dizzy puppies.
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/21/09
06/22/09
I think when we label writing and journalism (even sad 'party journalism') as useless and not labor intensive, well, that's exactly the kind of product we are eventually going to get.
You always need to pay for quality work. I don't go to a doctor who does it just for the "exposure" or the "experience" of being a physician, and I don't want to read publications staffed by people there for the free food or the guest list.
06/22/09
Dave,
I agree completely, I think honest work deserves honest pay. My point is about accuracy. Gawker doesn't pay their video interns and they're explicated told not to have editorial aspirations. So Gawker, like GofaG has a staff that is "largely unpaid." as well. Are they both running businesses based upon slave labor? It would be difficult for Gawker to exist without the help of unpaid or underpaid workers.
Gawker pays their writers, but how much, and is it enough to not be considered slave labor?
The devil is all in the details. The details, which when left out can allow you to spin a story in any direction you wish.
06/22/09
06/22/09
My original post in this thread was meant to be sarcastic. I actually think the video interns do important and difficult work. Having to sort through tons of video to find things worth posting is as valuable as actually curating posts for Gawker, in fact it is almost the same thing. Granted you don't need to have the writing skills to write a narrative around it but it is still valuable work that is, as I understand it, unpaid.
06/22/09
06/21/09
Foster, did you actually bother to interview Rachelle? I'm sure she's not very hard to reach.
06/21/09
#boomroasted
I kid, I kid.
I can confirm independently that GofaG is both largely built on free labor AND does arrange paid freelance gigs for some of their contributors on particular occasions.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go line up for some free bread before it's all gone.
06/21/09
Either way, though, good post!
06/21/09
...?
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
Because you're making assumptions about how and why Rachelle runs her business rather than asking her yourself. Also, because you've got questions for her, which you could easily ask. Like why can't she pay her people, and if she can, why won't she?
As for getting paid, I hope they are paying you and paying you well. I enjoy your posts here, even if I wished you had contacted the subjects for a quote.
06/22/09
06/21/09
But an entrepreneur should be embarrassed to have to beg around for free work. It's like bouncing paychecks.
And a worker should be embarrassed to accept an ongoing arrangement, un-negotiated, where their work has zero value. Even more embarrassing if you're someone who's parents built a fortune, and you repay the kindness of their financing your education by continuing to live off their teat while you are a professional unpaid scenester.
But then again, we are all embarrassing!
06/21/09
05/19/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/19/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
Except for the girl in the sailor shirt who seems to be seeing the place for what it is.
She's A-OK.
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09