This is the way the HuffPo rolls, writes Michael Miner of the Chicago Reader: Give us your work, we'll give you exposure. But not, unfortunately, money.
Or publish something somewhere, and we'll link to it, along with a clever riff. But we won't pay for that, either.
But it's not just the HuffPo, it's most blogs. (Ahem) And most of them have only the tiniest fraction of HuffPo's readers.
Makes you wonder: Why are so many writers willing to work for free? Why can bloggers (ahem again) get away with poaching -- even though they call it aggregation? And, as someone smart once mused, don't people who know what they are doing do it better when they are paid to do it?
Or have we decided that all you need to call yourself a journalist -- is a day job.
If the HuffPo is the future of journalism, fine. It's smart and entertaining. But if the HuffPo model is the future, maybe not so much. bk
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query chicago reader. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query chicago reader. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, January 16, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
Free market editting?
AP reports that 55 reporters and editors at the ailing Chicago Tribune have sent an email to the bosses, asking why the paper was allowing the marketing department to survey subscribers to find out their opinions on stories BEFORE they were published. Ugh.
Those who signed the email cited a number of problems with the practice, including ethical ones. I guess.
From the AP story:
Those who signed the email cited a number of problems with the practice, including ethical ones. I guess.
From the AP story:
"It is a fundamental principle of journalism that we do not give people outside the newspaper the option of deciding whether or not we should publish a story, whether they be advertisers, politicians or just regular readers," the e-mail read. "Focus grouping as done in the past is one thing. But this appears to break the bond between reporters and editors in a fundamental way."
The reporters and editors also said many have become uncomfortable that the marketing department appeared to be playing an undefined role in the newsroom.
No one will say what stories were under consideration or whether reader response shaped editorial decisions. Still. Scary practice that is unlikely to end well: It's like measuring news value by the click. bk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
