The Catch-22 of Blogging

November 9, 2012 § 4 Comments

So, my previous Patch editor and I have had several discussions about the fact that while bloggers are valued and becoming more spotlighted on Patch (due to site-design changes), they remain unpaid for publishing there.  Or on the Huffington Post.  Or on the Daily Kos.  Very few of the big sites pay their bloggers, as a matter of fact.  Of course, this makes me bristle, but I try to look at the good points:

  1. I have no obligation to these sites.
  2.  I have no deadlines, except those that are self-imposed.
  3.  I own my work and can publish/re-publish when and where I please.
  4.  My content appears written as I’d like it to – unedited.
  5.  I have gotten a lot of valuable guidance and experience from these sites.
  6.  I already have an audience built-in.  That one is big.

Here are the bad points:

  1. I put a lot of time into writing the main piece, and then reading/responding to comments, when they occur.
  2. I don’t feel much loyalty towards the publication, or motivation to stick with them.
  3. I’m almost ALWAYS tempted to get snarky when they make suggestions (“I think you’d do a great job with such-and-such topic…” and “Did you see that comment on xyz?  I think you could do a lot with that…”)  If you don’t PAY ME, you don’t get to make suggestions.

I have some friends who say this is my own fault – that bloggers like me devalue professional writers’ place in the market by writing for free.  They’re right. They have good reason to be annoyed about it.  They have many more credentials than I do in the field.  They’ve either been published, been building their careers for many years, have worked their asses off in ways I have not, and/or gotten in on the ground floor of the social media skyscraper.  They have a long resume of accomplishments and leverage they can point to in demanding pay for their work.  They are, in other words, established.  I am not, and I’m making it harder and harder for THEM to be compensated monetarily.

So the Catch-22 of the situation is that to test out my sea legs as a writer is by blogging.  Yet, the mechanism that makes it easier for me to get my writing out there also plays a huge role in cheapening my worth, and makes it harder for me to get paid for that same writing.  Furthermore, when I ask people at Patch questions that could help me determine my value, like how many page views my pieces get, I am told, “We don’t keep numbers on bloggers.”  When I point to things like how quickly or for how many days my pieces are listed in the top 5 most popular blog posts for the site, I am told, “Oh, don’t go by that.  That’s never accurate.”  Le Sigh.

Little by little, though, I am beginning to feel that my writing is worth paying for.  I published my first article on – a paying site.  I’m looking into other publications that pay for articles.  I’m researching and learning how to make a pitch to editors for individual articles, and looking into putting packages together for trying to get syndicated.  I’m scoping out writing conferences.  I’m trying, as much as time and kids will allow, to pay my dues and work my way up.  I’m well aware the odds are against me.

Then last night, my former editor sent me an article by Nate Silver (of the now famous Five Thirty Eight blog on the New York Times) that she came across.  It does a nice job using algorithms and math to support the assertion that bloggers don’t generate nearly as much money for sites like the Huffington Post as paid writers do.  Basically, a blogger’s piece might generate enough income to pay for a slice of pizza.  While she sent it to me with kind intentions (See?  We’re not slavedrivers building our fortunes on the backs of bloggers providing free content!) all I took away from the article is that my writing is not worth that much.

Here’s the thing, though.  When I publish something on my personal blog, I know (mostly) the people reading it will (mostly) agree with me.  When I publish something on Daily Kos, I know I’m (mostly) talking to a like-minded audience – friendly and receptive to my points of view.  When I publish something on my local Patch, however, I am much more likely to also be read by someone who holds opposing views.  That presents potential challenges that appeal to me.

My goal’s almost always been to start a real conversation, to foster understanding, to find common ground.  I thought that meshed with Patch’s goals nicely – maybe even worth enough to be paid.  Maybe not, as I know staying in the black is the real goal always.  But if I’m going to take the trouble to link my pieces up to Patch, deal with the different design of the site, check back to see if it’s been moved to the front page, send a friendly reminder to the editor if it hasn’t, etc., the least they can do is buy me a slice of pizza.


Who’s THAT guy?

November 2, 2012 § 1 Comment

Once upon a time, there was a man named Dr. Benjamin Rush.  Never heard of him?  Not surprising, even though he was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and helped ratify the Constitution of the United States.  He was beloved in his time, spent much of his medical career helping the poor, was an advocate for abolition of both slavery and the death penalty, supporter of education for boys AND girls, and while serving as a doctor in the Continental army, criticized and called for the removal of George Washington as head of the army.  (p.s.  That last was a bad career move.)

Anywho, he was also very close friends with a couple of guys who were a little more famous – John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.  Adams and Jefferson were compadres during the signing of the Declaration of Independence, their time in France as ambassadors, and remained close until the presidential election of 1800.  Jefferson’s narrow defeat of Adams and their political differences left them bitterly estranged for years.

Nine years later, Dr. Rush had a dream.  In it, both Adams and Jefferson had retired, began corresponding and renewed their old friendship.  Excited and moved by the dream, as he was deeply bothered by their estrangement, he wrote to Adams and Jefferson each to describe it.  Adams and Jefferson received the letters from their mutual friend with open hearts and minds, began a tentative correspondence with one another, (it so happens, this was on my birth day and month – May 27th – emerald’s my birthstone, and I love jewelry, in case any of you are so inclined) and with the benefit of hindsight and wisdom to guide them, they became closer than ever.

Eerily, another part of Dr. Rush’s dream came true.  Rush dreamed that Adams and Jefferson “sunk into the grave nearly at the same time, full of years and rich in the gratitude and praises of their country.”   John Adams and Thomas Jefferson indeed died within hours of one another, on July 4, 1826.  Fifty years to the day after signing the Declaration of Independence.  Adams even died with Thomas Jefferson’s name on his lips.

I think it’s safe to say that Dr. Rush did his country a great service by helping these two living legends reconcile.  Thomas Jefferson and John Adams wrote volumes of letters to one another as a result (also a great birthday gift…from which I’m sure we could all learn a lot.

In January 1787, Benjamin Rush delivered an address to the American People at the American Museum in Philadelphia.  In it he pointed out what he believed was the misinterpretation of two words which he wanted to correct.  The first was regarding the word “sovereignty.”

“It is often said, that “the sovereign and all other power is seated in the people.” This idea is unhappily expressed. It should be—”all the power is derived from the people.” They possess it only on the days of their elections. After this, it is the property of their rulers, nor can they exercise or resume it, unless it is abused. It is of importance to circulate this idea, as it leads to order and good government.

The people of America have mistaken the meaning of the word sovereignty: hence each state pretends to be sovereign. In Europe, it is applied only to those states which possess the power of making war and peace—of forming treaties, and the like. As this power belongs only to congress, they are the only sovereign power in the united states.”

The second was regarding the word “independent.”

“We commit a similar mistake in our ideas of the word independent. No individual state, as such, has any claim to independence. She is independent only in a union with her sister states in congress.”

“”All the power is derived FROM the people.”  They possess it only on the DAYS OF THEIR ELECTIONS.”  (capitals mine.) Individual states are “independent ONLY IN A UNION WITH HER SISTER STATES in congress.”  (capitals mine.)

Dr. Benjamin Rush held many views with which I disagree.  Yet, I am grateful for and respect the common thread he wove throughout his life and through his legacy.  Bitter political enemies can reconcile and be friends.  The country would be better for that.  States can only be independent if they are working as a union with their fellow states in Congress.  The country would be better for that, too.  And if you need me to connect the dots between these lessons and recent events and behaviors of our leaders in times of crisis (I’m looking at you, President Obama and Governor Christie,) let me know.   I’m happy to help.

And please, don’t forget to vote.

Where Am I?

You are currently viewing the archives for November, 2012 at The Worthington Post.

%d bloggers like this: