Return readers of this blog (hello! you are awesome!) might remember that a while ago I posted on the issue of the new ABC/Express Media Book Show blog: the (il)legitimacy of blogging.
The post highlighted how unfair it is that these media outlets will pay for the kinds of writing that will end up in print or on air, but not the kind that will end up on a blog.
Following my post there was a flurry of discussion around the internets on the same topic:
Ryan Paine’s post in particular is an interesting one, because he is talking about how it’s a great opportunity for young writers, and that young writers should be given a chance in these kinds of things. On both those points, I agree – but both those things are separate issues entirely.
Anyway, today seems a good time to return to the discussion, for a few reasons.
Firstly, Overland has just advertised a similar unpaid writing gig: Blogging for Overland. They state:
We can’t pay bloggers. But we can offer guaranteed exposure for your writing on a high-traffic site of a prestigious journal. You’ll make connections with other writers; you’ll get your words out there; you’ll build something of a profile.
Again, I don’t doubt that this is a good opportunity for a writer (of any age!). But it still strikes me as unfair. In a twitter conversation, Overland’s editor Jeff Sparrow said this to me: “The other instance is mags that don’t pay authors. Same innit?”
As the publisher of a mag that doesn’t pay authors, I thought about that a bit. But I don’t think it is the same. The difference is that a mag that doesn’t pay its authors usually doesn’t pay any of its authors.
Overland and the Bookshow Blog are paying some of their writers (those that appear in print/on air) and not others (those that appear on the blog). And that’s where the problem lies for me, and why I titled my posts to highlight how blogging is perceived as a less legitimate form of writing.
Content does two things for a publication: it advances the debate or conversation that the publication is committed to having, and it grows the profile and reputation of the publication. Content does this whether it is published in print or online. So why do only the writers that appear in print get paid? Yes, print articles are usually longer, but pay rates for blog entries could be scaled to take that into consideration. If the online content is seen as less worthy than the printed content, then why publish it at all?
The second reason why this is a good day to reignite this discussion is because today John Birmingham wrote an article about it in the Brisbane Times: Aunty? I want some answers.
Those who follow Birmingham on twitter will know that yesterday he was outraged to discover that the Book show blog gig is unpaid. (Interestingly, the line about the gig being unpaid has been removed from their callout for writers, which is why it wasn’t obvious to Birmingham when he first read the ad.)
In true Birmingham rant-style (sightly edited down by me, but his emphasis), he says this:
This looked like a great gig for a baby writer…You can imagine my horror then, when less than two minutes later, I start getting [tweets] telling me the gig was unpaid.
As in you would work for free. Reporting from writers festivals and literary events. Doing your research. Taking and transcribing interviews. Reading, taking notes on, and writing reviews of books. You would be doing the sort of work that professional writers and journalists do, with all of the attendant responsibilities and pressures BUT YOU WOULD NOT BE PAID.
He also mentions this blog (!) and quetions the legitimacy of blogs and blogging:
I suspect a large part of the problem… is a reluctance by elements of the ABC to accept blogging as a legitimate media form. It’s unusual because they’re years ahead of the commercial networks in their pioneering of digital media in many other ways. As Dempster points out, old-fashioned book reviewers on the show are paid for delivering their critique to air. Repackage that content as a blog, however, and pile on extra responsibility for managing any comment thread that arises from it, and you’re suddenly giving it away for free.
It’s wrong.
It’s worth reading the whole article if you’re interested in this issue, and the comments thread. (There is a lot of outrage in the comments thread – outrage at the ABC, and outrage at Birmingham’s statements.)
Anyone else have any further thoughts on this issue?
Edit: Jeff Sparrow has blogged about this issue at Overland: blogging, payment, the ABC and Overland.
