Yesterday morning, I was listening to a story on NPR about a newspaper in Boston that’s looking for bloggers who live in the city to act as local news reporters. It’s a very interesting idea, and I immediately perked up, even though my coffee hadn’t yet finished its own perking. The argument was that bloggers know more about their communities than some reporter coming from outside does. What an interesting idea. I bet many bloggers know more about certain subjects than many reporters do. Here’s an example, just off the top of my head: math educators might happen to know a little more about the “math wars” going on in the American education system than a self-declared-math-hating journalist. If papers like The Wall Street Journal tapped into math educators blogging on the subject, and got one of them to write their articles, maybe I wouldn’t be so infuriated every time I read an article on the subject and would stop coming away thinking, “That reporter doesn’t have a clue. How could she have written that? Didn’t she do her research?”
Now, I know, reporters are supposedly more objective than those in the field, and maybe it’s a good idea to try to have an objective voice when discussing controversial topics like: why do American students lag so far behind students in other countries when it comes to mathematical ability? But let’s take a different sort of example. Yesterday’s New York Times had an article about chimpanzees in its Science Times section. One can’t have an article about chimpanzees without mentioning Jane Goodall. Wouldn’t it be cool if that article had been written by someone who’d actually worked under her rather than some reporter who was just researching her? I’m not saying there’s someone out there blogging about his/her experiences working with Jane Goodall, but there could be (honestly, I haven’t looked). Think about how much more information that person would have. The possibilities for this sort of reporting seem endless when one thinks about the vastness of the blogosphere.
Even more interesting about this report was that the bloggers for this Boston paper would actually see their names in print. The idea, as I was able to gather, is to print their blog entries in an actual newspaper. What a nice transition for those who are eager to be published. They wouldn’t have to abandon their comfortable blogging zones.
It doesn’t sound like there could be a downside to this for the blogger, does there? Well, then I listened on to find out that this paper doesn’t plan to pay the bloggers. Maybe. Eventually. But not yet. What? Can you imagine a paper approaching someone and saying, “We’d like you to write stories for us, but we’re not going to pay you?” Unless you’re a college intern, doing it solely for experience, or happen to be independently wealthy, you’d be nuts to agree to that. I hope any blogger approached by them realizes this, especially if he or she wants blogging legitimized. Everyone knows that the key to legitimization is cold, hard cash. I mean, lawyers don’t run around providing free legal representation in the hopes that they’ll become recognized in the field. Aspiring writers shouldn’t either. And imagine how much money the owner of a paper can rake in if he doesn’t have to pay his reporters (or at least is only having to pay those few he hires who aren’t bloggers). Even more important, though, is: what’s in it for the blogger at all? Bloggers already get to blog about anything they want with no pay. Suddenly, people are going to be asked to blog about things someone else dictates, and still not get paid, all for the slight chance that they might be recognized and maybe then be able to publish something that pays? As far as I’m concerned, Corporate America strikes again. Only this time, the worker bees aren’t getting even a tiny drop of the Queen (or King) Bee’s honey.
15 comments:
I'm just curious as to how the newspaper would check the credentials of the blogger, especially if the story comes out quickly. What if a blogger claimed to be an expert on carving wooden ducks, but was actually a computer geek whose girlfriend was stolen by a wooden duck carver? He could pose as the expert, faking his credentials, and then spread malicious and false information about the whole wooden duck carving enterprise and the scoundrels who engage in it. I know this is an obvious example, but I thought I should bring it up.
Would their posts be subject to editing as well? Sounds like a cub reporter job to me -- without the pay. Is this paper thinking that they are promoting the bloggers? Perhaps, but if someone is interested in reading a blog with a local focus, they can easily find such by searching the internet. Little to gain for the blogger. I can't imagine why anyone would want to do this.
Linser, you're point is absolutely legitimate (although I suppose there'd be some sort of screening process), and I love the notion of the rejected and revengeful wooden duck carver.
Cam, yes, I didn't really make it clear that the idea is supposedly to promote bloggers. But if we consider that seriously: a circulation of a print paper of how many? v. the blogosphere of how many? The electronic capabilites of self-promotion for somene who's really motivated seem to dwarf what a local print paper might do. I'm not sure about the editing question, but I'm assuming they would be, since I don't know of any print resource that doesn't edit its writers/authors. But maybe someone else does?
Linser, that's "your," not "you're." My PET PEEVE of all typo pet peeves. I'm slapping myself silly.
I like your idea but I'm so much the cynic that I wonder if, the way newspapers are, that there would be some screening process to make sure th blogger will tow the company line. Like here, they would only take bloggers who write like the bloated hack who does CD reviews in our local daily.
The principle of the agoravox information website is that all journalists are volunteers --often non-professionals--, and the resulting media is free. The reports are often very well researched, especially (as you put it) when written by people in the field. There is some sort of system for not letting anybody write anything, so that the article quality is often par with classical media, but the overall tone is much more democratic than traditional papers.
If there is no big capital making money on what I write, I'd gladly do it for free.
I'm not as skeptical about this and I think it could work well for all concerned IF the newspapers aren't telling the bloggers what to write or how often they need to submit something. But if they're just including excerpts from local blogs in their paper that they feel would be of interest to their readers, it sounds like a win/win. The public gets access to different perspectives from their communities and bloggers get a bit more attention and recognition. Am I missing something more blatantly exploitative about this plan? I don't think they'd be presenting the bloggers' work right next to other articles by their paid staff, would they? I assume there would be a clear demarcation.
I write for the Huffington Post and I can assure you none of us gets a cent for it. But it's fun to be part of that online community. I only submit when I feel like it, I can write about whatever I want, and I'm free to use the material elsewhere. Not that I wouldn't LOVE IT if I could make money off my blog, but I have to admit I enjoy the freedom of having total control over what I write--there'd be far less chance of maintaining that if it were part of a paying gig. I love (and need) paying gigs, too, I'm just saying that both scenarios have their advantages and, if anything, I worry that the exchange of cold hard cash might DELEGITIMIZE blogging, not the other way around!
Good point well made, Emily. Bloggers should be paid just like any other freelancer contributing to a newspaper. And if they are paid, then they need to be professional about what they produce (proper research, no posing as wooden duck carvers) and of course have their work edited as all newspaper copy is edited.
I think it's potentially great for both bloggers and newspapers, as long as both behave professionally.
I heard that story too and thought it was pretty cool at first, even found myself wishing they'd have a paper in Minneapolis. Until I heard the bloggers weren't getting paid. I assume the editors and the regular reporters are getting paid, why not the bloggers? Made me a bit upset thinking that the paper people think that since bloggers blog for free and for fun seeing their names in print should be reward enough. I'm starting to get worked up, I'll just stop right there.
As much as the idea might be to promote bloggers, this does seem awfully like somebody's bright idea about how to save money ...
I don't know what it is about publishing and no pay. It must be the only industry where this happens a lot. I've published four academic books and only ever received a £200 advance for one of them. The rest I do for free, effectively, but I'm required to do it for my job. Please, someone, change the system!
Ian, I suspect you're right. One of the things the newspaper owner was complaining about was the fact that there aren't that many "good" blogs out there. Whenever I hear that comment, I always think, "huh?" I'm sure I could spend 24 hours a day reading blogs and not run out of good ones to keep me satisfied. He's probably looking for those who write like your CD reviewer.
Mandarine, thanks for the tip, and you're right: if no one's making money, I don't have a problem with it. In fact, it might be one of the purest ways of receiving news -- no advertisers to worry about who might pull out, no subscribers who might cancel their subscriptions...
Danny, you've got a point, too, that paying might delegitimize it, but I still have the feeling that it's just one person's way of making more money off someone else's hard work. And overall, it indicates a lack of respect for bloggers (they don't have experience, journalism degrees, etc., so let's not pay them). I don't know if the paper plans to tell the bloggers what to write, but I agree that one of the attractions of blogging is getting to write what I want without having to worry about someone else deciding whether or not it's worthy of publishing. Once someone's telling me what to do, I consider that a job and expect to get paid.
Charlotte, yes, professional behavior all around is key.
Stef, imagine what a newspaper "cutting and pasting" from free blog material could do. We might have heard all that beginning part that was getting us all excited, and then the bit about bloggers not getting paid would have been left out. We'd have been phoning editors at our own papers encouraging them to do the same ;-)!
Dorr and Litlove, yes, knowing a little bit about the world of publishing, it is an odd one in which those who actually make the "product" (reporters and authors) often get very little for doing so. Such a small percentage really get paid big bucks (and what a world we live in when that means Jackie Collins gets all the money, and Litlove doesn't).
Emily, this is a great post about an important subject - one I'm not sure how I feel about yet. You hear anymore about this or that blogger getting a book deal (Julia Powell, for instance) or a newspaper column and you can't help but dream, but for me I think my blogging is more personal and almost journal-like, and I wouldn't want to change how blogging fulfills me in exchange for the possibility of it enhancing my career...I need to think more about this.
I heard that news story on NPR also. I had mixed emotions about it. Right now two other authors and I are contributing a chapter to a book that's devoted to protecting the nation's critical infrastructures (ports, airways, bridges, financial networks, etc.). The book itself has something like 60 authors and the royalties are the standard publishing royalties, which means that all 60 of us divide them and make maybe $1. However, we agreed to do it because we feel our message of the importance of doing a better job of making our ports and those who work at them safer is important enough to transcend any hopes of financial gain. So, it's possible that I'd happily contribute to a newspaper for nothing more than getting my name in print. The report also did point out that the circulation of the paper might be greater than the number of readers a blogger attracts on the Web, therefore getting the blogger more exposure. I might be interested in that part of it as well, especially if my blogs could save the English language from the total destruction that it's currently facing at the hands of marketing and business writers. (P.S. I also want to point out that there's no such thing as objectivity in news reporting any more....)
Frosthy, you're right. If something is near and dear to my heart, I might be willing to write about it free. And, yes, as you so elogantly posted yourself, we all know journalism is no longer objective.
Post a Comment