Conversation journalism? No way. Should bloggers write for free when in big media print? No way - By N.L. Belardes
Interesting. The Californian attempts to coin the phrase "Journalism is a conversation" by implying bloggers are citizen journalists who are merely "conversing" with readers, and that "conversing" is news because it's part of the human experience regarding citizen-related events. Hogwash. A historian like myself is just as capable of writing a column for the local newspaper as the journalists themselves. All across America, so-called experts without degrees in journalism write columns for major newspapers because certain names help sell papers.
You better believe with my strong opinions, the day I have a nation-wide bestseller, the Californian or a like paper will be begging me to write a column...
There is a pretentious us vs. them attitude from the Californian and from media who are buying into the Californian's theories of a conversation journalism blogosphere. Sure, I understand the media is trying to filter out the really shitty writers by lumping all bloggers into one category, but coining a phrase to indicate all bloggers are just having a conversation because we write on a blog engine is too general of a statement. Many bloggers write for different reasons, in different tones, and incorporate writing from all levels, all disciplines, and non-disciplines. That means Joe on the street, and Joe with a doctorate discovering the cure to cancer, folks being reporters, and trying to be reporters, or like me, a novelist on the street helping illuminate a 'not so covered' art scene.
In the piece you are about to read, the Californian indicates that music scene writers can submit to the newspaper for their citizen journalist category...
I wouldn't.
Having local bloggers submit is a way of integrating folks into the newspaper to illuminate a "conversation-journalism" mentality...
Yet still, I hope what the Californian really means is paying bloggers for articles that the Californian should farm and pay for, not ask for submissions. They read our blogs, right? They should know which articles they would want to publish and pay for to fit their format. The newspaper should formally ask bloggers. That should be part of their entertainment person's job. To write now and then, and to find articles to print from local writers who are hip to the scene.
Here's the Bakosphere blog and an excerpt from a piece from a Californian 'blog expert' apparently leading the way across the nation with this "Conversation journalism" mentality against bloggers, which is just a way for newspapers to try to get blogging accepted, yet categorized:
Your Words
Ray Hacke, The Bakersfield Californian's citizen journalism editor (yes, the paper does have such a position -- one of the few such jobs in the nation) is enjoying a few minutes of blogger fame this week after answering some questions about Your Words for Kpaul Mallasch a fairly well read media blogger (you know, I mean well read among us new media types).
Money quote:
Actually, we did choose to stay away from the term "citizen journalism." The reason was that we wanted average readers - people who have little to no writing experience whatsoever - to feel like they could have a voice in our paper, too. The word "journalist" has some heavy connotations to it - we felt people might hear it and think they'd have to have some formal training or be thoroughly knowledgeable about grammar, spelling, style, etc., to write for us. We figured that might scare them off, and nothing could be further from the truth.
Our overriding mantra for citizen journalism is, "Journalism is a conversation," and we want people from all walks of life to sit down at the table and join in. So far, we've actually been pretty successful in that regard — we've gotten contributions from writers as young as 12 and as old as 90, from janitors as well as doctors.
So far, two other bloggers have linked to the post, both of them prominent in the industry. Amy Gahran and Steve Yelvington.
You know folks and fellow bloggers, any of you can submit your stories to Your Words, and they can be about any kind (pretty much) of local-interest non-fiction you fancy. In fact, it might be a great way for those of you writing about local music to get some band profiles and such onto Bakersfield.com and maybe even into the newspaper.
My response commented on the Bakosphere blog:
If the Californian wants music promoted in the paper, they already know the scene folks write blogs. Why not just point traffic there? Or find the articles they want printed and offer to pay for those articles?
Question: are the conversation pieces in print paid for by the Californian? I hope so. Not sure. Your article wasn't clear on that. This is the problem with blogging. It rapes writers of money they deserve should the media want articles and not be willing to pay.
Just a few years ago I was getting paid 150 bucks per 200 word blurbs for Las Vegas Citysearch. Now, you see the media often getting content for free from bloggers, which leaves writers out in the cold.
My opinion is, if the Californian wants specific music pieces, they should just offer the scene writers a deal... and if they need the content, why not ask us to submit instead of hinting through a blog post? or better yet as previously mentioned, since Staff at the paper read the music blogs, just offer Mike Generic or Matildakay or illpressed or myself money for articles they might want to print? You know the articles you might want. Ask for them.
The 'come to us little bloggers' mentality is funny...
You better believe with my strong opinions, the day I have a nation-wide bestseller, the Californian or a like paper will be begging me to write a column...
There is a pretentious us vs. them attitude from the Californian and from media who are buying into the Californian's theories of a conversation journalism blogosphere. Sure, I understand the media is trying to filter out the really shitty writers by lumping all bloggers into one category, but coining a phrase to indicate all bloggers are just having a conversation because we write on a blog engine is too general of a statement. Many bloggers write for different reasons, in different tones, and incorporate writing from all levels, all disciplines, and non-disciplines. That means Joe on the street, and Joe with a doctorate discovering the cure to cancer, folks being reporters, and trying to be reporters, or like me, a novelist on the street helping illuminate a 'not so covered' art scene.
In the piece you are about to read, the Californian indicates that music scene writers can submit to the newspaper for their citizen journalist category...
I wouldn't.
Having local bloggers submit is a way of integrating folks into the newspaper to illuminate a "conversation-journalism" mentality...
Yet still, I hope what the Californian really means is paying bloggers for articles that the Californian should farm and pay for, not ask for submissions. They read our blogs, right? They should know which articles they would want to publish and pay for to fit their format. The newspaper should formally ask bloggers. That should be part of their entertainment person's job. To write now and then, and to find articles to print from local writers who are hip to the scene.
Here's the Bakosphere blog and an excerpt from a piece from a Californian 'blog expert' apparently leading the way across the nation with this "Conversation journalism" mentality against bloggers, which is just a way for newspapers to try to get blogging accepted, yet categorized:
Your Words
Ray Hacke, The Bakersfield Californian's citizen journalism editor (yes, the paper does have such a position -- one of the few such jobs in the nation) is enjoying a few minutes of blogger fame this week after answering some questions about Your Words for Kpaul Mallasch a fairly well read media blogger (you know, I mean well read among us new media types).
Money quote:
Actually, we did choose to stay away from the term "citizen journalism." The reason was that we wanted average readers - people who have little to no writing experience whatsoever - to feel like they could have a voice in our paper, too. The word "journalist" has some heavy connotations to it - we felt people might hear it and think they'd have to have some formal training or be thoroughly knowledgeable about grammar, spelling, style, etc., to write for us. We figured that might scare them off, and nothing could be further from the truth.
Our overriding mantra for citizen journalism is, "Journalism is a conversation," and we want people from all walks of life to sit down at the table and join in. So far, we've actually been pretty successful in that regard — we've gotten contributions from writers as young as 12 and as old as 90, from janitors as well as doctors.
So far, two other bloggers have linked to the post, both of them prominent in the industry. Amy Gahran and Steve Yelvington.
You know folks and fellow bloggers, any of you can submit your stories to Your Words, and they can be about any kind (pretty much) of local-interest non-fiction you fancy. In fact, it might be a great way for those of you writing about local music to get some band profiles and such onto Bakersfield.com and maybe even into the newspaper.
My response commented on the Bakosphere blog:
If the Californian wants music promoted in the paper, they already know the scene folks write blogs. Why not just point traffic there? Or find the articles they want printed and offer to pay for those articles?
Question: are the conversation pieces in print paid for by the Californian? I hope so. Not sure. Your article wasn't clear on that. This is the problem with blogging. It rapes writers of money they deserve should the media want articles and not be willing to pay.
Just a few years ago I was getting paid 150 bucks per 200 word blurbs for Las Vegas Citysearch. Now, you see the media often getting content for free from bloggers, which leaves writers out in the cold.
My opinion is, if the Californian wants specific music pieces, they should just offer the scene writers a deal... and if they need the content, why not ask us to submit instead of hinting through a blog post? or better yet as previously mentioned, since Staff at the paper read the music blogs, just offer Mike Generic or Matildakay or illpressed or myself money for articles they might want to print? You know the articles you might want. Ask for them.
The 'come to us little bloggers' mentality is funny...
This entry was posted by N.L. Belardes, on
Thursday, February 02, 2006.
You can leave your response.
I'll bet a piece of ass that they'll never come to me for anything.
Hi, N.L.
Thanks for mentioning my article, and for disagreeing in such a spirited fashion. BTW, the link to my article is: http://snipurl.com/m5zs
I'm not exactly sure why you object so strongly to the concept of conversational journalism -- would you care to clarify that? I suspect that you're conflating several related themes and drawing unwarranted conclusions.
- Amy Gahran
RightConversation.com
Contentious.com
IReporter.org
You have to realize that sometimes the excitement of seeing something in print with your name beside it clouds your mind. Before you know it you've submitted photos for an article in the Californian. At least, that's what happened to me. In the end I was happy to have helped some friends get publicity for their Footy club, but next time I better get paid.
I can't agree more Nick in your response to the Californian's "Citizen Journalism."
A few weeks ago, I read about this Citizen Journalism and I thought, "Wow! that's an excellent way to farm some good stories out from regular folks." Sometimes, John Doe and Joe Schmoe have interesting, educating, and entertaining things to share.
Also, Californian's do pick out journalism that's worthy enough to be on the print media and only edit it a little bit for "human consumption."
It's just a conversation folks. Try it, you might be able to make the cut.
You hit it right on the spot Nick. But you're still picking on Bob? C'mon ... "heheha." But where has Bob gone anyway?
Neither I nor anybody else at the Californian invented the phrase "journalism as a conversation." That actually comes from Dan Gilmore, one of the formost experts on participatory journalism, of which blogs are just one part, and has been embraced as a concept by bloggers across the blogosphere.
You don't like the idea, fine. I think it's a good idea.
I'm not in the least involved in editorial decisions. I just through out an idea because it sounds like a good idea to me. I see you and other local music people bitching about the lack of local music coverage in TBC. Well, here's one way for you to do something about it. That's all I'm saying. You don't want to, that's fine.
-- howard
That's not fair and we think all writers deserve copywrite protection of all of their work. And yes, an LA band really DOES care!
I'm in agreement with you. If they find something they like, pay to print it or pay to have them rewrite it if it's a particular topic.
Besides, they have dozens of "Contributing Writers" with the online edition. And if they want local music and art coverage they shouldn't have stopped covering it when they did.
I agree. If they're looking for articles then pay for them or hire the author.
I agree that writers should get paid if in print. Why should the journalists in their ivory towers get paid to be lazy while people on the streets write the news?
A classic example of people trying to take advantage of the "arts".
I run into this problem all the time in the illustration world.
They believe they are doing YOU a favor by actually printing your work. They feel their way of payment is they are giving you "exposure".
All it is though is a cheap/abusive way to get material. The more people go about accepting to do work for free, the more the publisher is going to exploit writers. This happens the same with Illustrators, Photographers, etc, etc.
those lazy @$$ californian journalists! can't they do anything themselves anymore?
I was once accused of trying to be 'Carrie Bradshaw' of the HBO Series Sex in the City for writing my blog. However, even though Carrie Bradshaw was a fictional character, her character wrote a human interest, local events, identity style column (like my blog) for a newspaper in which she was paid well enough to afford tons of expensive shoes.
The difference here is... bloggers write because they love writing and expression and sometimes they report the news, their views and opinions. Bloggers are mostly shunned by the local media or looked at as just ametuer writers not journalists. Why then is the local newspaper trying to get local bloggers to submit their writing for free? Is it because what we write is more interesting, more mainstream, more fun to read than what the local newspaper prints? Do they not have anyone on staff writing about local events, music, art, human interest or are they just lazy and trying to get stories for free?
Do they think that because we publish for free through blogging that our writing is unworthy of being paid for? I disagree. If they are reading our blogs (which they are) and enjoy what we write (which they do or they wouldn't be reading) and they are asking us to submit to the paper, why can't they extend the same courtesy to us (local bloggers) that they would any free-lance writer and pay us for our work?
Way to go NL for pointing out the obvious slighting and charaterizations of the Californian again.
Fuck Corprate USA, fuck the californian fuck the suit wearing yuppies who rule this world... get paid or tell them to get fucked....Sorry for the vulgar response, i hate jerkoffs....
I believe The Californian is in part responsible for the neanderthal climate of this town, culturally speaking. The cultural events in this town are covered as advertising material more than as events. It's much easier to copy an artist's promo pack or parrot others opinions when an act or event comes to town. Rarely are events spoken of in depth after they have happened. What will historians learn about us when they read The Californian many years from now ?
Not sure what to say....but heres a sellfish plug-in.....GO TO THE CONDOR GAME ON SAT. NIGHT BECAUSE MY BAND IS PLAYING!! DIRTY SPANGLISH!! HOO RAA!!
HAVE A BEER AND FALL IN LOVE!!!
It really, really sucks to work hard on a piece of writing that someone else makes money on, and then not get paid for it, oneself (I am unfortunately speaking from experience). And that whole attitude that we (as artists) ought to just shut up and be grateful for the chance to contribute . . .!!!!!! Argh. [Insert creative swearing here!] What does it say about a 'major publicaton,' that it has to borrow from writers who supposedly don't know enough about writing to be paid for it? Here's where they have to admit a) they are cheap bastards or b)thier own staff writers can't fill the pages themselves.
Get 'em Nick. :)
I've always found it funny that some newspaper writers tend to be a little bitter when talking about bloggers. Bitter because maybe we don't do all the "leg work" they do. For the most part, they're right, but they always forget, NOBODY PAYS US SHIT! Sometimes I wonder what the hell am I doin' this for free?
You want to get paid for having one of your stories printed in the newspaper? Welcome to journalism, my friend: Nobody gets into this career to make it rich lol. Besides, print media is notoriously cheap, so don't quit your day job.
Newspaper mentality: "If you can't beat them, join them--or have them join you." In a lot of ways, this is smart, because they are trying to keep up with a changing media. But their way to do this is not by merging the two; it's a way to get bloggers to stop blogging and start beefing up print, which seems to be a medium on the decline.
The way I see it happening with my friends and others is--bloggers blog until someone notices and offers them a paid job in print, or film, or whatever.
Eventually, you do get paid. But you have to start for free, especially in a field that is by no means lucrative. It's why internships are so prominent in journalism.
But my question is like so many of yours: why isn't blogging considered a kind of internship? Why can't bloggers get paid upon submission?
This fact denies that blogging, in terms of the true civic duty of journalism--the need to bring news to the people--is more efficient than an newspaper because it reaches a hell of a lot more people.
It's good to see this piece is still getting views and comments. Thanks T. Khera. I agree with your strong statement...
leave a response