Last week, i had coffee with my sort-of mentor, a veteran science journalist who i admire greatly and never miss a chance to chat with. She read the blog article i posted at SciAm last month, liked it, but pressed me about my motives--"My only question is--why is it on a blog. Why didn't you publish it?"
The truth is, it hadn't occurred to me. I was excited to write for the new SciAm guest blog--SciAm doesn't really take freelance contributions for their magazine or website, so I was happy for the chance to engage with the SciAm audience.
But, as I walked out of the coffee shop, I began to second-guessing my motives. Am i cheapening the value of my work as a science journalist by working for free? Like--when I get my next freelance assignment, will the big fat zeros I get every time I write a blog post average into my pay? Will HR think my product is worth less? Countless other bloggers take little or no compensation for posts that take quite a bit of research time (Yong, I don't know how you do it.) Are we sending the message that our creative content is worth naught?
This all reminds me of a post I read a few months ago at fellow science journalist Angela Saini's blog. Saini argues that journalists should keep their standard intact, not work for less than they ought to, else industry standards will plummet and good journalism won't be worth the time spent to make it:
The problem is that the profession is being devalued. Firstly, by magazines and newspapers that are turning to bloggers for content instead of experienced journalists. And secondly, by people who are willing to work for free or for very little (interns, bloggers, cut-price freelancers). Now this is fine if you're just running your own site in your spare time, but the media is always going to suffer if journalists don't demand fair pay for doing real stories. Editors will get away with undercutting their writers. Plus, they'll be much keener to employ legions of churnalists on the cheap. In the long-run, the quality of stories will fall.
Perhaps that's the sentiment behind my mentor's remarks. But, there are other ways to look at it, i think.
To begin with, I'm not sure you can draw a particularly solid line between bloggers and journalists. Many bloggers that Wired, Discover, and SciAm rely on for web content are professional journalists. And, the ones who aren't have trained themselves, as has been true of a certain percentage of journalists for decades. The point is--most bloggers on legacy media websites are providing quality journalism. And that's what matters (or should matter.) If we're talking about editors choosing bad journalism (done by interns, bloggers, or little green elves) because it's cheaper, that's a mar on their integrity. Someone's not doing their job correctly, and it's that person who should be held accountable. So, if it's a question of bad journalism devaluing good journalism, it don't think it works that way. As a comment on a recent OJR post says:
Does the legion of ‘bunches of lads’ who get together to form a band to do the occasional gig in a pub devalue professional musicianship?
Does the relatively modern practice at weddings of disposable cameras being placed on tables at the reception devalue professional photography?
Does the existence of WordPress devalue professional website design?
Does YouTube devalue professional film-making?
These are, of course, all silly questions – the part-time blogger who writes about the interesting stuff going on in their street is no more devaluing the professional journalism of the local paper (which stopped covering interesting stories on peoples’ streets long before bloggers came along anyway) than the existence of amateur choirs are devaluing the City of Birmingham choir.
But, if 'cut-rate freelancers' are offering similar quality journalism for half the price, then value of quality journalism is declining. But, who's fault is that? It's possible that recent standards for freelancing pay set in the 70's, when advertising dollars were rolling in and newspapers were flying their foreign correspondents first-class to Madrid, South Africa, and China? Those days are long gone. Has the bubble burst? If Gannett's stock plunges, how do we keep from our product being devalued, too? This conundrum has nothing to do with bloggers devaluing journalism and everything to do with advertisers devaluing journalism publications.
So, maybe cut-rate freelancing is a sign of the times. But, perhaps giving away content has benefits. Editorially, more competition should drive up quality of the journalism being published. And as far a blogging is considered a sign of the times too, perhaps giving away content is a good way to make the industry aware of your skills as a writer.
In a recent post, "My blog doesn't depress wages," Ben Mazzotta argues, "Strategic give-aways are a good business strategy." Images of 'the camel girl' giving away cigarettes in my favorite bar flood my mind. So, maybe that's what we're doing, us science journalist bloggers: we're getting you addicted. I'll tell you--my RSS feed leads me on trips to Wonderland, The Loom, and The Frontal Cortex every week, all written by science journalist bloggers. Their blogging makes me want to read their other work, so they've got me as a personally engaged audience member. That's gold, in the publishing industry.
I just hope things don't go the way of the music industry, where songs were devalued to almost nothing, and, like Gillian Welch sings--
"Someone hit the big score-
they figure it out.
We're gonna do it anyway.
Even if it doesn't pay."
No matter how much you want to try and justify it, giving away your content for free does devalue journalism. Or blogging. Or anything.
ReplyDelete"Strategic give-aways are a good business strategy" is a sad fallacy these days. The Camel-girl doesn't apply. Writing is not addictive. Content mills seek other free sources rather than provide payment to earlier free sources. Content is a vehicle for advertising, no matter how much a website owner would like you to believe otherwise. Publishers are not seeking good content; they are merely seeking good-enough content.
Don't kid yourself: a publisher finds no difference between your writing and good-enough writing. Why? Because the audience finds no difference between your writing and good-enough writing. Most blogs or websites are merely places people stumble into during an attention-deficit-disorder-driven click frenzy. They click, scan a sentence, and then leave—like the annoying kid in college who had the shakey leg under his desk, it's an involuntary movement.
People who look for good content will spend time with publications (electronic or otherwise) that provide good content. Seek out those publications (Sci-Am is a good one), provide content and, most importantly, get paid for it!
Everyone else gets paid, why shouldn't you the writer, or you the photographer?
Don't give it away just because everyone else is.
Perhaps I am a bit optimistic in thinking readers enjoy good writing more than bad writing and that publishers are still looking for 'good' instead of 'good enough' as you say. And, maybe I'm also optimistic in thinking 'strategic give-aways' work. I've just gotten a lot of opportunities and professional respect through blogging and it leaves me thinking there's at least some value...It doesn't work that way for everyone..
ReplyDeleteA very interesting read, for someone like me, a scientist who blogs for fun.
ReplyDeleteI am in no way print worthy (far too much profanity, irrespective of writing quality...), however, I might hope to be in the future.
So, the question is, if blogging were killing journalism, science journalism in particular, how does one make the transition if they didn't take the chance to do something for fun, improve, get feedback, develop a more professional style and realise a personal dream or goal?
At the same time we're being told, by some, that we are, essentially, undercutting ourselves and others who make their living this way.
I currently don't make a living from writing (I'd be one hungry chap...) and don't pretend to know what the answers are. Maybe I am symptomatic of the problem, maybe I just happen to be here at the same time as another problem is raising it's head.
In summary, a good, balanced thought provoking post.
Now I shall bookmark the page, go read some of your other work, and keep an eye out for you in print...
G
A tough tough topic. The way I see it is this: I started blogging because I *couldn't* get into a mainstream site and be paid for my efforts, and yet I really wanted to write. When I moved the blog under a media brand (first ScienceBlogs, then Discover), I was paid for my writing (currently, at a reasonable level). I wouldn't write for a big organisation for free.
ReplyDeleteAlso, with the blog, I've found it very hard to calculate returns. I get much more than just financial reward out of it. It's been the key to developing a bigger reputation and credibility that has allowed me to get paying gigs as a freelancer. It's that type of intangible, long-game benefit that I (and others) struggle to grapple with.
Devaluating journalism is mostly because of ever decreasing quality produced by "real journalists." (see my thoughts on that here: http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2011/01/facts-are-overrated-anyway.html )
ReplyDeleteEventhough I appreciate the effect of competing with bloggers I still feel that without the abysmal state of the MSM in general today you would not be asking about this.
Ed--Thanks for weighing in. It's nice to know you are paid well and have garnered many opportunities as a writer. It's a promising new path to becoming a science journalist. For me, unpaid blogging has slightly increased my opportunities as a writer, but is also good writing practice and a way to connect with a support network/community of others like me. The whole package makes it worth not getting paid, personally. I don't see this as having any effect on the journalism market really.
ReplyDeleteNescio--Msm cannot afford to pay as much, journalists are paid less to do the job of 4 people instead of 1, so journalists produce lower quality product. Is that the publication's fault or the journalist's? big debate
"Their blogging makes me want to read their other work, so they've got me as a personally engaged audience member."
ReplyDeleteI am a reader just like this. Reading blogs that I like has helped me get to know science writers that I like. When they publish something in a magazine or newspaper, I track those articles down, buying issues of magazines off the newstand to get them. So, I know that the problem is larger than the individual reader but I don't think you're off base in saying that this is at least one valid way of looking at it.
I mostly abandoned printed publications (especially newspapers) for a long time due to the poor quality of the articles and switched to reading almost exclusively blogs.
ReplyDeleteI have slowly started to purchase printed publications again but almost entirely based on them containing either an article written by blogger (or someone who's articles are available online for free) or a recommendation from a blogger for an interesting read.
I can't be the only person who has done this. I can't be the only person who has been forced to search out my own quality sources of articles, opinions and news due to the "good enough" attitude of the editors of most print publications.
Yes. Finding quality journalism is in the reader's hands these days, in a sense. I know that I look to friends (or trusted online acquaintances) to point me in the right direction more than ever. But, I still check NYT science section and Wired science every week, too.
ReplyDelete"Msm cannot afford to pay as much, journalists are paid less to do the job of 4 people instead of 1, so journalists produce lower quality product. Is that the publication's fault or the journalist's? big debate"
ReplyDeleteMy view is that both are to blame:
1 The newsagency for not investing in more journalists/more time,
2 Journalists for their many incompetent articles, i.e. the he-said-she-said-fallacy, being unaware of logical fallacies, et cetera. If you don't know what you are talking about and lack resources to ask experts don't opine on the topic. See the above link for details.
In short, newsmedia need to spend more time and money on stories, and we need to reeducate journalists.
Cheers.
While your essay makes some reasonable points, I think it misses a big one. The Web is a democratizer. It is a democratizer because it reduces the barrier that existed previously between the writer and the reader. What you see is the reduced barrier and that means less pay and a less identiifiable position. That is one aspect of democratization. Previously, qualifying to earn that pay/position meant a certain amount of training, experience, etc., before a publication (that cost a lot of money to print) would employ you. The Web removed the cost of printing while opening the audience to the entire world for the price of a Web connection. Democratization removes these qualifications (for better or worse) and makes the popularity of what is written the determinant of success, much like a populist movement exists in democracies. In democracies, the loudest voices are the most likely ones to be heard, not the most intelligent ones. I am guessing that is at least partly what you are decrying, along with the obvious change in positions.
ReplyDeletenice article really informaitve
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely not! 10 years ago that might have been true. However, we are in a new age and time. You no longer have to spend years and years working for companies with rigid hierarchies to get your work out to the world. 10 years ago the value in these companies was that they were the only ones with the power/money to distribute your work. However we are living in a viral age where facebook is responsible for the fall of autocratic nations, and revolutions are happening at lightning speed because of it.
ReplyDeleteGood/interesting/powerful content (whether it be film, music, writing) reaches millions in the matter of minutes. And you no longer need distributors to get your work out there. If you hold on to the old way of journalism, you'll get left behind. In any business, you must move with the times or else quickly become obsolete...i.e. Blockbusters.
BLOGGING IS THE NEW FORM OF JOURNALISM!…watch CNN or Good Morning America…where are they getting a lot of content from? BLOGS!!!! You tube!!! Twitter!!! The biggest news story right now, the Arab Revolutions, is covered mainly through youtube videos provided by civilians that used their cell phones to capture news in the making.
Music isn’t de-valued, the industry has just changed. People will always love music and musicians. There are still billions of billions of dollars to be made in the music industry…however, the business model must evolve. The advent of the automobile didn’t devalue horses. The whole point of horses was Transportation. People will always value transportation. It’s just that the technology evolved, and transportation became more convenient. The same goes for content, people will always value good content. I think the better questions to ask yourself is 1.) How can the content that I create be better/ more interesting/different than what is out there? 2.) How can I best adapt to and capitalize on the current times? 3.) How can I contribute to the evolution of journalism? Because it’s early enough, where there is NO model and you can pretty much make the rules…if you’re good ;)
These old news institutions are scrambling right now to catch up with the new way. So why waste time even pondering the old way? I embrace and LOVE this new world, because it levels the playing field and you no longer need tons of money, degrees from fancy schools or to look a certain way to succeed anymore. It makes things very fair. And, it cuts straight to the point without any bullshit. You make good work and people will respond. People respond and you get paid. So you REALLY have to earn your money now. I don’t see blogging as giving your work away for free…I see it as creating momentum. Create enough momentum and blogs turn into television shows, advertising revenue, books, movies…etc.
I think when your mentor said that to you, it was a projection of her own fears of not being able to stay with the times.
P.S. I might have exaggerated a bit, we all know that the biggest news story currently is Charlie Sheen :p
Signed Tye from IBN ;o…got to get back to work cause you know I work in a sweatshop…lol