(Not) Making It at Gawker
Earlier this month, a Washington Post staff writer just covered something from his own experience: having Gawker "excerpt" his exclusive story to such an extent that it probably eliminated the need for anyone to go to the original version. You can read about the controversy about the potential of blogs to essentially rewrite articles as their own posts. Read the original in the Post and then read the Gawker piece and decide whether it's theft.
I'm actually inclined to think that it wasn't theft. Yes, Gawker should have properly credited the post in addition to giving the link, but there is a difference between the two pieces. The Post had the reporting; Gawker had a critical take on how silly the entire thing sounded -- something the Post wouldn't let its writers say, even if it should be necessary.
But I'm not actually interested in this issue so much as another. In Ian Shapira's piece, The Death of Journalism (Gawker Edition), he mentions that the Gawker writer, Hamilton Nolan, who freely used his work is actually a freelancer paid $4,000 a month by Gawker. That's $48,000 a year. Freelance. Without benefits. Before taxes.
Pathetic if you consider, as I've always heard, that the work load to do a blog at Gawker is punishing -- long, long hours for the flat fee and whatever passes for page view bonuses these days.
There are better online opportunities, I've found, and ones that don't effectively require you to plan your entire career around the convenience of a single client.
I'm actually inclined to think that it wasn't theft. Yes, Gawker should have properly credited the post in addition to giving the link, but there is a difference between the two pieces. The Post had the reporting; Gawker had a critical take on how silly the entire thing sounded -- something the Post wouldn't let its writers say, even if it should be necessary.
But I'm not actually interested in this issue so much as another. In Ian Shapira's piece, The Death of Journalism (Gawker Edition), he mentions that the Gawker writer, Hamilton Nolan, who freely used his work is actually a freelancer paid $4,000 a month by Gawker. That's $48,000 a year. Freelance. Without benefits. Before taxes.
Pathetic if you consider, as I've always heard, that the work load to do a blog at Gawker is punishing -- long, long hours for the flat fee and whatever passes for page view bonuses these days.
There are better online opportunities, I've found, and ones that don't effectively require you to plan your entire career around the convenience of a single client.
posted by Erik Sherman | 8:50 AM
5 Comments:
Erik: If you are suggesting that having a guaranteed $48,000 a year from one freelance gig is pathetic, I'm surprised. Do you know if it's an exclusive arrangement? Or can Nolan work for other clients? Perhaps he's doing other, non-conflicting, work too. That sum sounds pretty good to me. In any case I would be very interested to hear more about the sort of online opportunities you mention. As a freelance journalist with a blue-chip client list I still find making decent money a real struggle. There are big newspapers paying as little as 20 cents a word now.
Tracey, sorry for not making this clear. From everything I've heard about Gawker, this is a massive time commitment and could rule out a lot of other work. I agree that $4K a month could be nice, but only if it doesn't rule out other work. On its own, after expenses and taxes, it's not so appealing.
Erik--
Not sure I understand this post, based on the initial premise-- Gawker did indeed mention the Post in its original recap of the article(and provided more than one link to the piece), which Shapira admitted drove a substantial amount of traffic.
As for freelancing, Gawker writers do indeed do-- maybe more so in the past than right now (given the environment), which is probably part of the allure of the website as well in that it's read by a lot of media insiders who can normally parcel out such assignments.
Chris,
I rewrote the post a bit to try making it clearer, but if you look at the Gawker piece, it doesn't mention the Post or the reporter by name in the text. It would have been good taste to do so.
That said, I saw the Gawker piece as not just riding the Post's coattails, but in providing a slant by taking a position on the situation, something the Post only hinted at.
I'm sure that Gawker writers do other work, but I also understand that the pace there is punishing and already long hours. That would mean you're essentially working full-time and responsible for your own benefits and taxes, and then needing to freelance more on top of that. They may do it, but doing virtually nothing but working is not a good type of life in the long run.
Of course, if anyone who has actually worked at Gawker wants to chime in, I'm happy to listen and even rebut my own post -- sort of the literary equivalent of a split personality, I think.
Congratulations! Our selection committee compiled an exclusive list of the Top 100 freelance Blogs, and yours was included! Check it out at http://thedailyreviewer.com/top/freelance
You can claim your Top 100 Blogs Award Badge at http://thedailyreviewer.com/pages/badges
Cheers!
Ted...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home