In 2003 I was fresh out of college and interning at Ms. Magazine. I first saw Arianna Huffington at the magazine’s editorial offices, where she was holding a press conference to discuss the numerous sexual harassment charges against her gubernatorial opponent, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Huffington was there to explain why his track record made him unfit to be California’s next governor.
I can’t recall precisely what she said, but I do remember her mentioning how Schwarzenegger’s cavalier attitude about his abuses of power on a personal level would likely manifest in the political sphere. I was deeply impressed by Huffington’s poise and intelligence (not to mention her tailored power suit and perfectly coiffed hair). It was a revelation: a woman could be classy and tough, assertive without being bitchy, and radical without sporting dreadlocks and Birkenstocks. So it was possible to be progressive and possess fashion sense! Huffington was a self-made woman who I thought would stand up for what she believed in—and perhaps even for those who couldn’t advocate for themselves.
Six years later, Ms. Huffington was a featured speaker at my graduate journalism program. A number of my friends protested her appearance, citing the fact that she essentially “pimped out” students from our program to produce investigative content for the Huffington Post without compensation, and she didn’t offer paid internships to boot. I debated ditching the lecture, but in the end I felt it worth my time. Whether or not I agreed with her methods, she had created quite a clever business model—and she was still one of the most powerful women in media. Paid or not, a clip from the Huffington Post carried a certain cachet, and I wasn’t going to dismiss her or her unpaid bloggers so easily. As we are taught, beggars can’t be choosers.
At the lecture, Huffington was once again articulate, passionate and tailored to a tee, but when the question and answer part came things got a little dicey. Someone asked why she didn’t pay her interns; another student asked if she thought the model of aggregation/blogging she implemented was detrimental to the future journalism. Things got a little tense. She wasn’t giving straight answers, and her lofty platitudes about game changers and the future of journalism left me without a clear sense of how to achieve my first practical goal—a paying job after graduation—or my long term one—writing those pie-in-the-sky in-depth pieces a la Joan Didion or Gay Talese. I went from feeling inspired to being disempowered in 0 to 60. I left early.
Still, I wasn’t totally cynical about the Huffpo model or the future of journalism—yet. I had a good education and plenty of spunk, so even if the Post wouldn’t pay, other places would, right? I graduated from J-school, snagged a fellowship at the Poetry Foundation in Chicago, and was lucky enough to be given the opportunity to write and report in-depth, long-form stories. That was six months ago, and since then I’ve struggled to find paid writing gigs that can sustain me financially, much less a full time job.
My story is all too typical. I have, however, freelanced–not blogged, but reported, fact-checked, and written–for the Huffington Post. For free. I pounded the pavement from polling places to voting rallies, conducted phone interviews with Chicago election experts, political science professors and voters, and hounded press secretaries for decent quotes from candidates during the city’s mayoral elections. So why would I go to all the trouble for free? Because I think there’s inherent value in quality journalism. Or is there?
The controversy surrounding the recent class action lawsuit filed by former Huffpo blogger and labor rights activist Jonathan Tasini against Arianna Huffington for unpaid wages isn’t really about whether or not she violated a legal contract (she didn’t, and in my opinion the case has no merit). The lawsuit speaks to a far greater issue at the crux of journalism in America. Its main function is to draw attention to a media landscape in which disillusioned journalists are becoming increasingly frustrated with their dwindling prospects for satisfying work and living wages—a landscape that Huffington is helping to perpetuate.
Before I continue, let me make one thing clear: I understand the game has changed. I’ve been inculcated in a new media world, and I get it. Why wait for some hotshot publication to hire me when I have the tools to report and publish at my fingertips, right? I blog and tweet, and I even go “on assignment” when I care about a story, whether or not I actually have an assignment. I understand that defining my online brand and making my voice heard in multiple platforms is now just as much a part of any journalism career as reporting the facts and shaping a narrative.
I’ve embraced the change, but I don’t always feel an evolving media model embraces journalists. Despite the fact we have scores of citizen journalists who can contribute to information gathering (which is all and all a good thing), we’ve conflated content farming with bona fide journalism—thoroughly reported, exhaustively researched, well written, fact-checked, copy edited, the whole nine.
In her rebuttal to the lawsuit, Huffington wrote a slightly dismissive and sardonic response in which she explains that the Post is just like countless other media platforms in which bloggers benefit from engaging in an online community. “The key point that the lawsuit completely ignores (or perhaps fails to understand) is how new media, new technologies, and the linked economy have changed the game, enabling millions of people to shift their focus from passive observation to active participation–from couch potato to self-expression,” writes Huffington.
Very true. But what Huffington completely ignores is that in the shift from an old media model to one of engagement and interaction, we’ve also shifted from telling stories to creating content. We’ve turned “self-expression” into self-promotion, and “active participation” into a means for everyone with an Internet connection and an opinion to be considered on par with journalists, which dilutes the importance of those who deeply probe the issues and privilege information about ideas and events above their online brand. The result? Exposure and attention have become a new sort of currency measured in traffic potential, page views, comment threads and click-through rates.
I thought of the piece I wrote for HuffPo on early voting in Chicago’s mayoral elections. My article got only one Facebook share and three comments. So does it matter if it’s newsworthy if it falls short according to Internet measuring sticks? Can content even be deemed worthwhile if it can’t be monetized?
Huffington also mentioned that some of her bloggers have gone on to get their own television shows or columns, but the truth is that most journalists don’t get plucked from obscurity. Most I know, including myself, slog along writing for sites paid and non-paid in hopes of gaining experience, exposure, and yes, a job–specifically, one that pays. In the past four months, I’ve written approximately twelve articles for various media outlets including The Daily Beast, Women’s eNews, Gaper’s Block, Bookslut, The Rumpus, TimeOut Chicago, and the Huffington Post. Some have paid me, others have not.
But I already write for the Huffington Post. If one the wealthiest media companies can’t pay me, then who will?
If Huffington wonders why some of her bloggers and journalists are now spewing venom in her direction, it’s because the The Huffington Post has come to epitomize everything that’s problematic with “modern” journalism: the millionaire media mogul in one corner and a legion of disgruntled, over-trained and underpaid “content creators” who once fancied themselves writers, reporters, and storytellers in the other. She many not be the only one (see Rupert Murdoch) but as a woman who built her image on being a salt of the earth kind of gal, she’s the one who seems to have betrayed those she once claimed to represent.
It would be unfair to conclude that Huffington is single-handedly responsible for shifting the media landscape, but it’s not unfair to mention that with power comes responsibility.
At what point in a journalist’s career is it fair to ask for monetary compensation? Or perhaps the question is at what point should I accept that the career formerly known as journalism is simply unattainable? (Unless, of course, I want to blog for free.) Is it fair to expect that after two internships, one fellowship, and numerous freelancing gigs I should desire a job–any job–that pays me to write and report, not aggregate content or put together slideshows of kittens? (Oh, and benefits would be nice, too. I’d love to get my teeth cleaned and work out some of my commitment issues in therapy.) But what happens if I can’t find a job because they’ve all been eaten up by your multi-million dollar merger?
Arianna Huffington didn’t violate a business contract, but she did fracture a powerful social contract protecting value and production. Many people around the world don’t have the privilege or freedom to rise above their circumstances (without starting a revolution), but in the U.S. we’re taught to believe that with hard work, a good education and a little persistence you can make your dreams come true. Isn’t that why Huffington came to this country in the first place?
It’s treacherous territory to examine the dynamics of writing for free, and easy to sound whiny and self-righteous. (Why does Arianna get $315 million and I get zero?) But my beef is not with not getting paid right now, it’s with the diminished opportunities I see in my journalism future. If my best option is to continue writing for free, then should I consider the ability to express myself as compensation enough?
What will happen (and is already happening) is that journalists will defect to other professions because writing and reporting are anything but easy. But what happens when it becomes downright near impossible? Huffington might consider her site and her vision the future of journalism, and yes, it’s one version. Here’s another one: mine.
I was tired of reading job postings describing the James Francos of journalism: “A qualified candidate must know how to create Web sites, shoot and edit video, use Facebook and Twitter, have a masters degree, five years of experience as a reporter, have published a book of short stories and know how to change a flat tire and cook a damn good key lime pie.” Or something like that.
I was offered a job as an editorial assistant with a massive media company. It wasn’t actually journalism–I’d be working in their custom publishing division, a close cousin of marketing and PR. I decided to do it–it offered a full salary and benefits-–but in the end, I didn’t get the job because it no longer existed. They had decided to merge two positions and a senior editor had his eye on someone he wanted to hire. They still wanted me–on a temp basis doing the same thing, just without benefits or job security. I scooped it up. It was also in New York, so I’d have to move. Now I spend my days in an office for an hourly wage working at a job that will end soon. At night, I write the stories I want to tell-–ones that I find important and meaningful, and ones I don’t often get paid for. I still wouldn’t have it any other way, but it’s not glamorous or easy and I don’t expect to earn a small fraction of what Huffington makes. Ever.
Perhaps I was entitled and naive to ever expect more. I’ve started to feel that the whole “writing stuff that matters and getting paid for it” thing was about as realistic as the part of my glamorous writer fantasy where I’m living in cute brownstone with a gigantic closet and dating some arrogant prick named Big. This, I think, is the future of journalism: moving in with strangers in a different city in order to take jobs obliquely related to journalism, continuing to supplement my income with tutoring, trying to do the “real’ journalism on the side and never really knowing if the constant motion is taking me forward or laterally.
This winter, Huffington was speaking at the Hyatt in Chicago. “You should go and introduce yourself,” my mother said. “Tell her you’re part Greek, too.” I didn’t think she’d care what I was or wasn’t. Besides, at most it could get me, what? An unpaid internship? I guess I’m better off on my own.
18 responses
I’m in nearly the exact same position as you. No matter how many times I may hear it, it’s still comforting to read the stories of people like us who are going through the same thing with their writing careers. If I have to hear something along the lines of “Your work is valuable – so valuable that we’re going to publish it on our site for free!” one more time I’m going to go on a rampage. Not only is that frustrating (to put it mildly) but I always feel guilty when I accept unpaid work because then I’m perpetuating the idea that writers don’t deserve to be paid. When did people decide that writers weren’t worth paying for, anyway? I’d like to see what would happen if this same “business model” was applied to some other career paths out there. I’m getting to the point where I have to decide how much longer I’m going to try and “make it” before figuring out my plan B, C, and D, and it’s awful. Hang in there, and remember you’re not alone.
I like this piece a lot. It leaves me feeling sad but it’s very well written. Thanks for writing it and thanks Rumpus for publishing it.
I don’t understand. Why are people doing all this work for HuffPo for free? If people stopped doing so much REAL WORK for free, then they would have to start paying or just lose that content, right? If they can get the content for free, then there isn’t much incentive to pay.
The fact is there are less eyeballs and each pair of eyeballs isn’t worth as much as it used to be so the structure of everything in this industry is going to change. In the meantime though, I would be wary of giving too much away for nothing.
At the very least, the change I would make is to spend as much time as possible on your personal site to build that brand up so that whatever reputation bump you get from writing for HuffPo, Daily Beast, etc, trickles back to at least traffic of your very own. If you can start getting traffic like that then you can eventually find a way to start making SOMETHING off it.
Wow – as a intermittent news consumer I had no idea this was Huffington Post’s model. I think its awful and yes contributing to the dumbing down of just about everything and everybody. But how do you change it? For journalists to get paid someone must pay for news. That means subscribing. Subscribing to something with very little insight into where or how they get their news or the quality of their journalists and writing. Trying to find that one news outlet that produces news in a way meaningful to you which is a tall order for one publication. Its easier for a consumer like me to go out and sample and donate to NPR.
I would love to support truly thoughtful, well researched neutral! jouranlism but have no idea how.
I won’t be reading the Huffingtong Post anymore though.
Writers of the world unite! Except…
…unfortunately, most writers don’t write for money, they write because they want people to read their words. If offered a salary to write things no one would ever read, or no salary to write things everyone would read, all writers would choose the latter.
And that’s the problem. And it’s not going to change.
We’re lucky Huffpo doesn’t charge a fee to the writers for granting space on their site. Hello, people would probably submit “reading fees” for the honor of even being *considered* for space on the Huffpo site, if the experience of fiction writers is any analog at all to the experience of journalists.
It’s fucking sad.
“But my beef is not with not getting paid right now, it’s with the diminished opportunities I see in my journalism future.”
Why do you feel the need to undercut your position with this sentence? It’s disingenuous AND self-defeating. Your beef clearly is – and clearly should be! – that you’re not getting paid right now for real work that just a few years ago you and many many other journalists and editors would have gotten paid to do. Work that is making someone else money! Every time I read articles about the HuffPo it makes me feel so ill. Arianna Huffington may have created a so called liberal media juggernaut, which in my opinion is a good thing, but she’s also ruthlessly and selfishly exploited thousands of people like yourself to make herself a multimillionaire many times over. Best of luck finding a career doing what you’ve dedicated your passion and energy to. It’s not entitled or whiny to express your desire to do just that!
I’m also in a similar situation: fresh out of college in nyc, taking unpaid internships and barely stopping short of selling my body on Craigslist for extra cash to pay the bills. It’s mildly comforting to know that others are suffering digitalization’s wrath.
Excellent piece, Ms. Salario. Depressing, unfortunately, but also completely valid.
Why not band together a bunch of your writer mates in the same boat and start your own site? Since you are already working for free you have nothing to lose. Start a paper on one of the various blogging sites, no tech experience required. Start writing, if its of value people will come and read it. Then advertisers will follow.
Wow, very well said. I’m closer to the end than the start of my journalism career and I can’t imagine what I’d have done starting out in the current environment. All of the culture industries are under assault — not to sound too political, but that’s what you’d expect during a fascist shift.
One of the best summations of “New Journalism” I’ve had the privilege of reading, thanks for a crash course in the subject and your honest, personal take on the matters raised. Fingers crossed you’ll have nothing but paid writing gigs landing in your lap in the not too distant future!
hi, first of all I apologise in advance if I will make mistakes or I don’t make myself clear
1) I believe that the ‘likes and share’ standard is bound to downgrade the quality of things. The most successful thing on the internet is porn. And, often, the most read news are sports, gossip and ‘voyeuristic news’. Does that makes that sort of article newsworthy?
2) all work should be paid. I understand that it can be appealing to ‘share the workspace’ with some ‘mostri sacri’ but nonetheless using that, and potential visibility, as an excuse for not paying is plain exploitation. I’m not aware on how journalists union work in the US, but, to me, it seems as if some collective bargaining is needed. This current capitalistic approach (masked as opportunity) in which aggregator and content providers cant negotiate on equal terms can only create harm.
3) use of accessory tools (facebook, twitter, etc). I’m not absolutely against social networks (apart from facebook) but I believe that, in the urge to ‘create a bond’ with readers, a ‘bulimic’ approach to news reading is being strongly implemented. A lot of people browse an article rather than reading it… stories aren’t digested. Is the purpouse of an article to be understood or to be seen?
In addition, but perhaps this is even more OT than what I’ve already written, I think that the news channels who focus a lot on the web and “breaking news†are shifting the idea of relevance from “how a story is told†to how “immediately a story is toldâ€. Thus implementing a short-sighted idea of the world in which the present is always a sort of ‘epochal’ turning point
all the best
p.s. i reached this article because it is printed in the new issue of Iternazionale
mistake in the ps… the article is referenced, not published
sorry:-)
I almost never use Facebook – my friends on there probably think I’ve died – but the hooks in this got me to share. (One of them was your “early voting in Chicago” story.) What I particularly liked was the way you USED all those professional writing skills you have so painstakingly developed, COMBINED with Rumpus-style 110% honest gutspilling.
Get me rewrite: the container that holds your honesty is totally professional: you’re willing to write an honest fact-checked-quality account of your own career, experiencing and reporting your emotions but not letting them pull the story off track, and I respect that SO much. (I wrote something like that once, except covering a 20 year period, and people were very surprised at what kinds of writing a person can get paid for. “Money or deathless fame but not both.” Fuck. Anyway you’ve made me want to put mine up – of course, for free, on my own blog. But will I follow your example and include the really embarrassing bits? ROFL and another FUCK for good measure…)
Stephen argues that if someone writes something REALLY amazing and unique and new, there WILL be a market, there WILL be readers. I hope that’s true and based on what you’ve shown us here, I hope it happens for you.
Well said. I hope you got paid for this one.
In a nutshell, isn’t this just about a person working for free so that another can get even richer? Peonage … slavery, bonded labor, whatever … This is an ancient business practice, legal in some times & places, illegal in others. It’s coming back with a vengeance today.
I am in complete agreement about Arianna and her business practices. But, I’m sorry, I have to point out that when you choose to write for free, you’re only helping to perpetuate the problem. Clearly, you’re a talented writer, and I’m sure there are plenty of other talented young people heading out with hopes of a journalism career. But if you give it up for free, who’s going to pay? I’ve been writing professionally for a dozen years or so and I’ve watched as paid opportunities have dwindled with more writers fighting for those well stories. Yes, the business has changed – it changed when people began writing for the vanity of a byline rather than a paycheck.
One of the best personal arguments I’ve read regarding HuffPo’s exploitation of writers. The Newspaper Guild and others who are fighting to preserve journalism as a profession have asked Huffington to reconsider her position of not paying bloggers. If you want to read more check out the the Facebook page: “Hey Arianna, Can You Spare A Dime?” It’s a shame that she has to be pressured to do the right thing. Apparently a bundle of money ($315 million) can turn a so-called progressive into a female version of Donald Trump.
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.