Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jill Di Donato on April 16, 2011 at 11:56pm

As a Huff Post blogger, I have to say that writing my "column" has given me fantastic exposure and has led to PR companies contacting me personally for pay jobs. I also want to point out that there's a screening process to be accepted as a Huff Po blogger; not anyone can post a blog or column, and each piece is reviewed before publication. That also lends credibility to writers who are featured on the site. In addition, writers retain all rights to their posts, and may re-publish them elsewhere for pay or not. That is a bonus feature, as many blogs require exclusivity or acknowledgment that the piece has been previously published. On Huff Po, the stories written remain YOUR work -- the forum of 1 million plus readers gives you a platform but the Huff Post doesn't own your words, so I don't mind writing without pay. I write my blog without pay, and it's one of the most rewarding writing jobs ever!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by E. Joyce Moore on April 17, 2011 at 12:03am

Arianna Huffington created an online publication for which I've written a few articles.  The problem is multifaceted.  She created the publication to garner a huge readership and blogging site under the guise of being a politically left-friendly entity.  Truth is, she's not and never was.  Many of the top bloggers left, finding that while she was negotiating her big deal with AOL, a flagrantly right wing biased crowd that loves the incendiary crap that draws the vitriolic people content to hide behind computer screens spewing their acidic hate and bigotry -- they/we began to be fiercely moderated for no particular reason. In fact, when I lodged complaints on Twitter, they really began to stifle my comments.  When I wrote the HP articles, I found that they weren't given the same weight as other unknowns, thus got little to no sunlight from readers.  Bottom line, she punked the readership, she's punking the bloggers.  Not because she has to but because she can.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jo Vraca on April 17, 2011 at 4:17am

This is a tough one--exposure vs pay. I guess this is one of the problems that the internet poses at the moment. While people still believe that information online should be free, writers, not publishers, will be the losers. The Huffington Post is by no means the only publisher to treat its authors with such disregard for their expertise. There are many papers, ones that I've written for here in Australia, who do not baulk at paying $25 for feature stories. And in my early days, I was happy to accept such conditions. Yeah, sure, they did lead to greater exposure. But whether you're writing one $25 article a week or twenty, it's still only $25 an article and any self-respecting newbie knows just how much work goes into them.

 

How does a serious news publication expect to get quality for nothing? Initially there is the buzz that comes from seeing your name, but anyone who has done anything for nothing, or for very little, knows that, after a while, the buzz is drowned out by the voice inside your head that says, "how can I do this faster, with less research and still get away with pumping out a decent story?"

 

Why doesn't Huffpo do what everyone else seems to be doing and just get someone on e-lance to bid a couple of bucks to write an article? What they're doing is no different.

 

I think that the entire matter is exacerbated by the sale of the site for $300mill. Give something back to the people who made you, Ariana. It'll make you feel better at night. Really, it will.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jennifer Brown on April 17, 2011 at 6:20am

I've never written for the HuffPo and I rarely read it, I don't have time with all the writing I do for my self but I have written as a paid columnist for Patch.com. The HuffPo is not my cup of tea but if they never promised financial compensation I don't know what this class action suit is about. The writers knew they weren't going to get paid. If they wanted compensation they could have written elsewhere. Apparently they wanted the traffic and exposure that was not guaranteed but certainly expected to some degree. Again, I don't read it on a regular basis but when I have I have found the articles to be riddled with typos or just poor writing. Some of the articles were great, don't get me wrong, but a lot of them should have never seen publication. This seems to be happening more and more in the bigger outlets because what they need is content, and sadly the content often doesn't matter because it is for the search engines. The Huffington Post isn't much different than ezinearticles or other article distribution sites. They don't care about the content, it's about keywords, and backlinks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ellen Appleby Keim on April 17, 2011 at 6:46am

While I think that the lawsuit has no merit, I do think something needs to change in the area of compensating writers. This problem existed long before there were online markets, but it's even worse now. I've been published online several times, but never once compensated for it. But if we boycott all the markets that don't pay, we may well be writing for no one. So what's better? Being paid and hardly ever getting published? Or not being paid, and getting plenty of "work"?

Let's face it, few of us get the kind of exposure that writing for the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos brings. We're stuck in the no man's land of giving out free content in the hopes of furthering our careers in some vague way. It just hardly ever happens, not for most of us. So what do we have to lose--or gain--if we refuse to write for non-paying markets?

The problem with boycotts is, they hardly ever work unless you get so many people involved that it negatively impacts the entity you're boycotting. In this case, there are too many writers who would still write for HuffPo for this boycott to have the desired effect. The publicity, however, is another thing.

It might seem like biting that hand that feeds (if not pays) us, but writers should continue to bitch and moan about not getting paid, even if they themselves write for nothing. It's a sad reality, but many people don't even consider themselves or others to be "real" writers if they're not getting paid for their work. Maybe it's that mentality that we need to change.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jennifer Brown on April 17, 2011 at 6:57am

I agree. As writers we are hardly organized as one unit. It's a cut throat business and there are so many people who want to be writers they are willing to cross that picket line. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they simply don't know that they are devaluing our work when they write for free. One of my writer friends once said that every time a writer takes a gig for free, in hopes of exposure, they are taking food off the table of another writer. I've seen my income go down with the growth of sites like the Huffpo. I now write for specialty companies, for their niche as a ghostwriter because I can get paid what I am worth. It isn't the writing I would like to be doing and I am certainly not getting recognition for it, but it pays the bills and allows me to write on my blog and work on my book.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jennifer Brown on April 17, 2011 at 7:04am

Let me add something...I noticed when the economy crashed a lot of people who were probably laid off entered the freelance market because hey, anyone can write. Writing doesn't cost much. There are few expenses to starting a writing career as the cost lies in labor more than tools. Suddenly everyone was hanging their shingle out as a writer. Most of these people dabble in the art rather than learn and hone their craft. I suspect it was these people who were more than happy to make the deal with The HuffPo and other sites like it. I've written for free for many different reasons but once I understood how these sites worked and how they generated their income I wasn't interested in contributing to them. However, if the traffic model actually worked I would be okay with not getting paid because the traffic would increase my revenue on my site. I've just never seen (or heard from anyone) it work that way.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Toni Denis on April 17, 2011 at 1:46pm

I think writers and journalists are exploited enough. HuffPo has become like Capitalist pigs they criticize.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Catherine Keefe on April 18, 2011 at 8:55am

Are we stronger solo or en masse?  Do we owe each other support, or do we owe ourselves the freedom to do what we decide is best for our individual careers?  What happens to a commerce-based society that decides its artists aren't worth pay? 

 

A related announcement: The recent New York Times move to charge on-line readers for content.  This reads to me as one gigantic positive swerve toward creating public awareness that excellent writing / journalism comes at a price. Part of that price is ensuring the bodies behind the words can eat.

 

When I began dirtcakes, my literary journal, one of my "no discussion" points was including contributor payments in my budget. Oddly, that is one of the decisions I've had to defend most frequently to staff and financiers. "Most literary magazines don't pay. We could put out more issues more frequently."  I'm developing a graceful smile to go with my "no discussion" refrain. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Q Lindsey Barrett on April 18, 2011 at 12:33pm

Horray for a lit that pays writers!

 

Most little lits don't pay, not because the refuse to, but because they simply don't have the resources.  Many "pay what/when they can," which isn't often and isn't much, but acknowledges that their journal doesn't exist without the writers. A far cry from the attitude that "we make the only money around here--how dare you think your work has value beyond 'exposure,' how dare you expect us to share once we become profitable." Isn't that precious 'exposure' suppossed to be so that others will pay for your writing? Why does Huff get to say others should pick up the tab while she gobbles profits?

 

The lawsuit (whose merits are a matter for the courts to decide) isn't about greedy writers. (Anyone who thinks greed has anything to do with choosing to be a writer never tried to make a living doing it.) It's a response to Huff's insulting view that the peons who create content don't deserve to make a living doing it--that all revenue should go into corporate pockets. In our capitalist society, lawsuits bring change. Large corporations nearly always have had to be forced into making safer products, paying a living wage, operating honorably, by lawsuits that made it more expensive to continue refusing to do the right thing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ellen Appleby Keim on April 18, 2011 at 3:02pm

It's true that HuffPo owes its writers, because without content how would it have gotten "big" enough for AOL to want to buy it? So ultimately it's HuffPo that gets the exposure more than any of the writers. Of the writers who have benefited from the exposure, I bet none of them have cashed in like Huffington did!

Writers should start demanding payment for their work, especially when they're dealing with a financial success like HuffPo. It will be interesting to see if Huffington starts paying its writers in the future.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Padmavani Karkera on April 18, 2011 at 4:18pm

Hello 

Thanks for posting this Kamy! I enjoyed reading the comments by other writers here.

 

One would expect a quality portal like the Huffington Post or AOL to pay for quality work it publishes and not spout some BS about platform and audience. That's ethics. And if they aren't, then I hope that these protests will get them to change their policy and if it doesn't then the class action suit by Tasini surely will.

 

I disagree with the statement that you aren't happy with the terms then don't write for them. This is like IBM saying we are IBM. Once you work for us (for free) you will get a job anywhere in any company of your choice. By and large that would be correct, but does it make it right? ethical? So why is wriitng so different? People are trying to make a living just like in corporates, in supermarkets, in construction.... But if entities of such stature and impact fomulate policies that prey on the desperation of talented people just trying to make a living, then they should be forced to reconsider.

 

Sadly, most times social, political, economic change is brought about by some extreme action whether it is boycott or a class action suit, or a fast to death. Anything to make the policy makers sit up, take notice and ACT.

 

Best

Padmavani

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page