Victorian infographic

A beautiful display of river lengths and mountain heights worldwide, published in 1823 in an atlas titled, "New and Improved View of the Comparative Heights of the Principal Mountains and Lengths of the Principal Rivers In The World, The whole Judiciously arranged from the various Authorities Extant." Say that four times fast! See other victorian info graphics here.

Does blogging devalue science journalism?

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.

So, I've come back around to thinking i was right in my intuition to write that SciAm post and not try to sell it somewhere. It was all in fun, really. I'm not sure my blog has an effect on the going rate for freelance content, and I think it might actually be a good business strategy to engage new audiences. What I wonder more about is the bigger question--how will the publications survive without ad dollars? Who will innovate, and how much will science journalism lose in the end?

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."