When I was in Afghanistan, an editor at The Huffington Post wrote about publishing my work on their site. They said I would receive “very prominent placement” and a “link back” to my website. No pay, of course, but a link. Exposure. The currency of the web economy: attention.
I said no.
For years many people have kept their mouths shut about Arianna’s abhorrent business practice of not paying contributors for fear of being blacklisted from her tabloid link farm. Had she been a conservative that launched an influential website of this kind, I imagine she would have been branded the Wicked Witch of the Web years ago. (Those sites already existing on the right, she changed her politics. Now she’ll shift to the center with the money.)
Now that HuffPo has merged with AOL for $315 million, her contributors feel duped. Maybe they thought it was a non-profit venture.
Lots of reactions out there. So far I’ve seen some good cartoons from Ted Rall, Mark Fiore, and Matt Wuerker. I was quoted in a Neon Tommy article and chimed in at the bottom of this piece written by a HuffPo writer who claims to be a “slave” who has posted “25 original articles that I value at more than $25,000, for free.”
She values them at $25,000… which is why she gave them away for free.
Arianna is drawing inspiration from Orwell while promoting the deal, claiming the partnership with AOL is a time when “one plus one equals eleven.” Pretty odd math for someone who recently counted to 315 million.
Orwell seems a big inspiration over there. For the HuffPo party line, check out Jason Linkins’ reactionary and childish lashing out at critics. Amid the huffing and condescension comes the following defense of why not paying people is OK since they are not forced to contribute any certain amount of content:
Please note, that part of what “free” entitles you to is a freedom from “having to work.”
I imagine Orwell would have phrased it a little better, opting for the satisfying rhythm of “Working for free is freedom from work.” But then, you’d have to pay for that kind of writing.
HA! AOHell and PuffHo –– can’t think of any two entities that deserve each other more.
It’s a quick jump from “Arbeit ist frei” to “Arbeit macht frei”
This comic really hits home. Hell, all your comics usually make me pretty upset about something. But as a writer out of work for 2 years, 5 months, this really burns. How badly the craft has been cheapened by this kind of profiteering… I applied for a $26,000 a year job with a local newspaper and I got beat for the position by someone with almost as many years experience as I am old.
Well, I guess I’m off to look for a job bussing tables.
Pingback: Tweets that mention HuffPo Hell | Bors Blog -- Topsy.com
You look great without a beard! Good work! Oh, and keep on getting that money! Life is hard out here for a comic strip pimp, or whatever! I guess the Arianna Huff is the pimp. So good work not being a cheap-ass ho!
Grandma, what a foul mouth you have.
Good to see someone finally speaking out against the greedy fake progressive Arianna. Now if only someone would take up the fight against the other greedy fake progressive plaguing the left blogosphere — Kos.
That was a wicked parting line (the blog post, not your smackdown of grandma). There’s no longer any comments on the journalist who values her work at $25,000, at least not on the link you provided.
But I have to ask – might not it have been economically valuable for HuffPo to have promoted your afghanistan reportage? Alot of people go there, triggering greater interest in your work and a new audience, etc. Do you think it then just devalues any work you do by having it be “free”, or are you against the concept wholesale, so wouldn’t want to support it, even if it might individually benefit you?
Sorry, economically valuable for YOU was my implicit assertion.
All the way to the bottom of that link, you don’t see comments?
Exposure is a real thing–perhaps being on there could have led to something more. But probably not. I opted to do paying work for Cartoon Movement instead and provided my editorial cartoons to paying clients who allow me to barely stay afloat. I would have been cheating them and undermining myself.
HuffPo relies on people saying “well, fuck it. It is a lot of attention” and caving in to their terms. Eventually, you need paid. I need outlets willing to support my cartooning, not offer it exposure while they rake in the cash.
Matt – “I would have been cheating them and undermining myself.”
Yes, precisely. Working for free does nothing to improve the status of the one doing the work, and it actually reduces the value of others’ work, who are expected to work for free as well. (“Hey, Bob over there says he’ll do it for free, so why should I pay you…?”) And we wonder why the economy keeps circling the drain.
I can’t imagine any other commerce model that would get away with such outright theft of services. Consider how soundly Wal-Mart gets trashed – and they actually pay their employees. Yet somehow, writing for a website is supposed to be gratis.
Arianna Huffington is a usurious, opportunistic twat. Good on you for standing up to her.
Well, the morons in charge at AOL bought something that might fall apart over the next weeks.
I really hope that most of the contributors are going to seek and find better conditions elsewhere.
Pingback: Huffington Hubbub – James Strocel’s Blog | www.James-Strocel.com
So linking you would have provided exposure? Don’t people die from exposure?
Although it would be nice if HuffPo (and other sites like it) could and did all pay their contributors
1) I don’t think this is always economically feasible (I’ve been on both sides of this wall, and I can tell you that smaller shops often cannot afford this while they’re trying to build themselves up, so I don’t begrudge them. HuffPo probably can, but we shouldn’t tar all these outlets with the same brush.)
2) More importantly, this comic shows that you understand the new reality (“someone please notice my wit”) but simply reject it as acceptable, which is understable. This is now the case for writers, musicians, videographers , photographers, and other creative types. The playing field is flatter than ever, there’s a surplus of people willing to do this stuff for pennies, free – or even pay for the privilege (I have, in fact, paid for this privilege myself) of getting seen on a major site/service. We’re now in world where you play the “get noticed and get hired lottery” or you use your “main” work to act as a loss leader for your income stream (teaching courses, speaking at seminars, whatever.)
People don’t always/usually want to pay for content; there are far more content creators
than people/the market will/can pay for; too many people will work for nothing or pay for
the privilege; anyone can become a content creator very easily, so there’s always another person ready to take your place; and for those who are playing the game as it exists now, getting on sites like HuffPo (and supplying content for free) and hoping to be noticed is a price many
are willing to pay to try to (eventually, after they get hired/launch their side business) scratch out a living in this new world.
You, and many others are calling it exploitative, but this is the new reality. If you want to change it, try convincing people who previously gave their work away for free to stop doing so. Maybe that will make content distributors see things differently. More likely, however, is that those previous content creators will simply be replaced by the hordes of young, hungry, out-of-work people with degree-that-has-done-nothing-for-them and the cycle will go on.
Well said! I will remember this every time someone asks me to write or edit without compensation.
As far as I know, the Huffington Post did not steal anyone’s work. My understanding is that if someone’s work was published at the site, it was with their permission. No one forced them to work, or have their work used, for free.
I think AOL is nuts to pay that much money for what is at base a news aggregator that wouldn’t exist without other media to point to. However, if people were willing to have their work posted without payment for whatever reason (exposure, mainly), you can’t blame the Huffington Post for taking advantage of that willingness.
Actually, you can blame them. Employers have always sough to exploit people by whatever means they will “permit.” Not only do they get that labor for cheap or free, but they help depress rates for the entire industry. “Exposure” is fast becoming the new pay model. Exposure for what? More exposure, I suppose.