The illegitimacy of blogging, round two
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 It’s not all about the money: legitimising youth literature
- With Extra Pulp’s ‘Sif you’d get paid for blogging
- Benjamin Solah’s Writers, pay and blogging: should writers write for free?
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.
Benjamin Solah
1:45pm, 22 Jan 10
The conversation with Jeff on Twitter has me thinking about writers being paid in general.
But I think these cases of not paying bloggers whilst paying other contributors is a much clearer argument.
I suppose Overland could argue that you sell copies of Overland but don’t make money off of the blog – but then again, they put their mag content online for free anyway.
If an organisation has the funding, it should pay. And we should always be demanding more funding for the arts. This is my instinct, though Jeff has thrown up some questions to force me to clarify this.
lisa
2:03pm, 22 Jan 10
Benjamin, I followed that conversation bw you and Jeff with interest – it got me thinking, too!
Karen (miscmum)
2:09pm, 22 Jan 10
I feel bad in that I cannot afford to pay contributors to the Misc. Voices blog blook, but I feel that I’m coming from a different direction with that project, taking already published content and then putting it out there for a new audience.
It would be a different situation if I specifically solicited/commissioned blog posts for the project. If I’d been coming from the blogger’s perspective, I’d probably want to be paid.
blogging, payment, the ABC and Overland « overland literary journal
2:10pm, 22 Jan 10
[...] luck would have it, we've sent out a call for people to blog at Overland just as a controversy has developed over the ABC Book Show doing more-or-less the same thing. The arts industry's reliance upon free [...]
Karen (miscmum)
2:13pm, 22 Jan 10
….but then I’m at a stage where I’m lucky enough/ feel weathered enough to be able to say that, I guess. One can’t discount the desperation some feel about wanting their voices heard through greater exposure. Why their words, or their writing, isn’t ‘good’ enough for their own blogs (if they have them) is another question entirely. It is possible to manifest your own name or ‘brand’ on your own blogs.
I’m at the point where I feel like saying, “This is MY work, it can stay here. If people want to re-publish it, that’s fine.”
Gill Stannard
2:21pm, 22 Jan 10
I think a large part of this issue is about undervaluing bloggers. The perception being that it’s a hobby, you might be a bit of a publicity hound and you aren’t a real writer if you blog. The misconception is perpetuated because baby writers want to break into freelance and so they get lured by the idea they’ll get a profile.
In my professional life I give stuff away for free – public talks, advice on radio and I regularly donate consultations as prizes for worthy fundraisers. But it’s a choice. I’m busy but I can afford to give my time for free if I really value who it is for. But I resent people asking me to donate time, writing or knowledge for free when they are making a commercial profit out of an event or publication. Or if there’s a history of being recompensed but it has been stopped (for example, I’ve spoken at a prestigious conference in my profession in the past that is unpaid but interstate airfares, a hotel room, most meals and the conference are paid for. The latest conference has decided to not pay for airfare or accommodation leaving the speaker with significant out of pocket expenses).
ABC is not for profit but it is government funded, so in essence they should be setting a better example. By paying some contributers and not others seems discriminatory, especially considering it is targeted at younger people.
lisa
2:29pm, 22 Jan 10
Gill, I agree! It’s so frustrating that blogging isn’t seen as ‘real’ writing.
Jeff
2:37pm, 22 Jan 10
Look, as I say, it’s a difficult issue for any non-profit organisation. It could be that we’re in the wrong (it has occasionally happened before
). But I’m not sure I follow the distinction you are making.
Almost every small press organisation employs volunteers (‘interns’ we call them these days). These interns do things like copyediting — which is also done by paid staff. How is that any different to what we’re proposing?
Alternatively, think of writers’ festivals. The EWF uses volunteers, doesn’t it? Are you really saying that they’re not doing stuff that other people are getting paid for? Again, how is that not exactly comparable?
Using unpaid labour is bad. I appreciate that. But every not-for-profit organisation does it out of necessity, and I don’t see why we should wear the opprobrium for something that’s forced upon us on exactly the same way it’s forced on everyone else.
And it’s all very well for Benjamin to say, well, if an organisation has the money, it should pay. But it begs the question, doesn’t it! What does it mean to ‘have the money’? Does the MWF have the money? What about, say, Sleepers?
Socialist Alternative, the organisation to which I used to belong, is currently, according to Facebook, engaged in a pledge drive to raise tens of thousands of dollars. Thus, in some senses, the organisation ‘has the money’ to pay award wages to those who write for its magazine, if it so chose.
But of course, because it’s a tiny not-for-profit organisation, it could only do so by pulling resources from other aspects of its work. And I don’t begrudge it for deciding the money needs to be spent elsewhere. As I say, for cash strapped community groups these decisions are inherently problematic.
You see where I’m going with the analogy …?
Forgive me if I sound a little bitter. I did think ours was a reasonable plan for building support for the Overland project outside Melbourne but am increasingly wondering if it’s viable. Like, if people do think it’s exploitative, well, we won’t do it.
lisa
3:03pm, 22 Jan 10
Jeff, I wouldn’t use the word ‘wrong’, as I understand deeply the challenges of running not for profits, particularly arts and publishing organisations.
Your point about interns is a good one, which is why I was interested when you talked about mentoring on twitter yesterday. I have never had an intern at Vignette Press, because I didn’t think that I would be able to offer anyone the work structure and opportunities that I think are needed to make an unpaid intern position rewarding. I am currently hiring interns at the EWF and am taking on less than the previous director did because I want to be able to offer as positive and rewarding an internship experience as possible, and feel it would only be manageable for me to do this with two interns. With the volunteers as with interns, I think the EWF has good enough structures in place to make it worthwhile, but as you say, it’s a grey area, and one that doesn’t sit entirely comfortably with me either. (To be honest I do feel conflicted writing about this stuff, and I know it opens me to accusations of being hypocritical, because Vignette Press does not pay its writers.)
The idea of the blog writing being a mentored program is interested, because it becomes a structured writing development opportunity and not just a free content opportunity. (It also gives rise to how the writers will be trained? As a poet probably wouldn’t mentor a a journalist, those writing specifically for a blog need to be taught and mentored and issues specific to blogging… it would be an interesting program.) And then we return to the question of interns and volunteers again…
I don’t think you sound bitter. And for what it’s worth, I don’t think Overland is being exploitative. Yes, it’s hard being a small not for profit, and it’s hard in the arts in general, and I sincerely don’t want to see an end to the kinds of projects those organisations get up, because they are vitally important.
But I think it’s important that these questions get asked now, as blogging and writing for online media is becoming more prevalent. It’s frustrating and worrying that blogging is continually seen as a less legitimate form of writing than journalism or short stories or whatever. Look at HuffPo and Punch – I think it’s terrible they don’t pay their writers.
lisa
3:35pm, 22 Jan 10
>>And it’s all very well for Benjamin to say, well, if an organisation has the money, it should pay. But it begs the question, doesn’t it! What does it mean to ‘have the money’? Does the MWF have the money? What about, say, Sleepers?
Jeff, to address this point in particular (because I love a good bit of begging the question), what does it mean to ‘have the money’? Well, it’s arbitrary, of course. But if we look at the examples already given…
I think we can agree that Fairfax ‘has the money’ (or, more to the point, should find the money) to pay their online writers. Then looking at organisations like the ABC (and Express Media), who get operational funding from the government, you’d hope that they would follow best practice in these kinds of situations and find the money to pay their online writers. Then for an organisation like Overland (et al), as a leading journal with govt funding and the support of an educational institute, you’d also hope that they would follow best practice… then we get to Sleepers (to use your example), who get funded for individual projects but not operational funding (I don’t think?) – at this level we get to ‘if they have the money…’ and from there it trickles down to tiny, totally unfunded outfits like my own. Of course, the Sleepers example is messier again because my understanding is that they are a commercial venture (as is Vignette Press).
This is all very slippery, of course. But organisations of different size and intent (commercial vs non-profit, for example, or educational institutes vs individual hobbyists) do kinda have different levels of public accountability… Please tell me if I’m totally off the mark here?
genevieve
7:44pm, 22 Jan 10
To clear one thing up: Sleepers doesn’t have a blog.
I read this after making my comments on Jeff’s post – great post, Lisa, and as always, a generous attempt to encourage conversation. I am glad I’ve bounced your way on a couple of points under my own steam – pleased we came up with similar questions.
genevieve
7:46pm, 22 Jan 10
And I like your probing of the mentoring feature of Jeff’s project. Fair enough when considered that he has come out on the Overland blog admitting to a tendency to ‘stream of consciousness’ writing when blogging – fire away, ask questions later. Not really the kind of training I’d like to see myself (and actually not at all the way his blogging really reads. It is usually excellent,like all his writing.)
LP
7:51pm, 22 Jan 10
As someone who has had both paid and unpaid blogging gigs, I think that the Bookshow Blog is a good idea. Yes it is hard work, but at the same time, the people who will be applying are NOT professional writers with heaps of publishing experience. Most opportunities for new writers will be unpaid, whether in print or online, but once you prove yourself the paid gigs will come.
lisa
9:42am, 23 Jan 10
Genevieve, I’m guessing that Jeff’s blog posts don’t seem like stream-of-consciousness because he’s a great and experienced writer, comfortable with his voice and able to knock off a blog piece (much shorter than an essay or article) quickly. It would take an emerging writer a lot more work to pull off that quality of writing. Perhaps blogging is undervalued because the professional writers and editor who run blogs do find that kind of writing easy? But that doesn’t mean it’s not work for others…
maurice mcnamara
7:12pm, 23 Jan 10
As someone who has been involved with the Overload Poetry Festival for a number of years, the fact that Overland used unpaid volunteers to report the goings on was a good thing. Overland got ‘street cred’, Overload got coverage. The reporters got to go to events for nothing, and their writing was published.
A writer with verve, wit and intelligence is sooner or later going to get paid. Good writers are hard to find.
Alec Patric
9:22am, 26 Jan 10
Consider this fantasy. You are a writer of Shakespearean brilliance. They accept every piece of writing you send, at every literary magazine in the country. At the end of this spectacular year of success, of having being published in every issue of every literary journal that pays money, you might have be earned as much money as a janitor.
Shakespeare would have got a pile of rejections though. The sonnets would have struggled to find space, and when one or two did get into a mag, they would have garnered the Bard a few hundred bucks – max. Blogging wouldn’t have helped much, but at least Christopher Marlowe would have a place to leave his comments, suggestions and support.
It’s a hard road, no matter which way you walk it. The writer that can live from her words alone is an exception of such stunning rarity that it does not simply prove the rule, it demonstrates an implacable law of nature in this country. Peter Carey teaches writing in New York, Christos Tsiolkas works in a veterinary clinic and Tim Winton probably teaches surfing on the weekends.
Almost no-one gets into this business for the money but there’s a small hope within most writers that perhaps they’ll be allowed to survive. That’s one thing I like about blogging I think. The connections made with other writers and ways in which they urge each other along that difficult road.
lisa
10:04am, 26 Jan 10
Alec, thanks for that insight! Really enjoying your thoughts on this topic. Though my understanding is that an average income for a writer is $11K/year – way less than a janitor. Of course that’s an average – the people at the top earn more, and those at the bottom way less. (Though I don’t like ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ as a concept, generally.)
The connections made (such as this one, now) is one of the reasons why I love blogging so much!
Blogging for free « avocado and lemon
1:50pm, 29 Jan 10
[...] Lisa Dempster, Ryan Paine, Benjamin Solah, and Extra Pulp have all been part of the discussion, as has Alec Patric on the Overland blog. (Clearly, I’m a bit slow off the mark.) I’m prepared to have my mind changed, but most of me thinks that these opportunities are good ones. Sure, they may not pay in actual cash, but (and if you read through the comments on the Overland piece, you’ll see that I’m pretty much reiterating what I’ve written there) being committed to making a regular contribution to, well, something, would be worth it for me. Payment is not always financial. [...]