These days, you might start out by writing an unpaid piece for HuffPo or The Awl (and hope it goes viral), or blogging 12 times a day, as a job I interviewed for at Curbed last year required. You might be working from home, without an editor to mentor you. You might be earning no money, or never knowing what you will earn, month to month.
This new model is in some ways more meritocratic, as it relies upon objective measurements. And there are plenty of success stories. Choire Sicha, a former editor at Gawker who founded The Awl, maintains that The Awl’s model is no more disadvantageous to aspiring journalists than what it replaced. “I think working for free was always the case in journalism,” says Sicha. “You had to pay for graduate school, know the right people, or hustle your way up. There were slightly more paid newspaper internships, but they always went to a certain kind of student.”
The new approach has worked so far for Emma Carmichael, a 2010 Vassar graduate who moved to New York hoping to break into journalism. While working days at a public-relations firm, she wrote unpaid pieces for The Awl. She credits those clips with helping her land an unpaid internship at Deadspin, Gawker Media’s sports blog. That led to a job as a paid staff writer at Deadspin, and she has since been promoted to managing editor of Gawker. “Without Choire, I probably would not have the job I have right now,” she says.
What’s lost to aspiring journalists may be more than just financial security, however. Paid internships, stringer contracts, and entry-level jobs as a magazine factchecker or cub reporter at a newspaper provided training in the craft of reporting and writing, and clips from an established publication. Those lines on your résumé and clips in your file demonstrated a body of knowledge and a stamp of approval from an institution with credibility. It was akin to a journalism degree, except you were paid for learning on the job. A bunch of blog posts with little or no reporting or guidance from an editor doesn’t necessarily demonstrate to a prospective employer that you are a qualified practitioner of journalism. If you are an aspiring humorist or snark machine, that may not matter. But if you want to write reported features for a newspaper or magazine, it very well may.

It can be a grind. Clay Risen covered politics for The Faster Times for six months, filing one to five blog posts per week while holding down a day job as an editor and taking on other freelance writing gigs. All told, he made only $100. Freelance writers for The Huffington Post aren’t even eligible for a Faster-Times-like commission, but they have the same incentive structure. If you aren’t paid for your story, you are doing it solely in the hopes that people will read it and that it will enhance your name recognition. If no one reads it, you’ve wasted your time. You want to produce something sexy enough that the editors will put it on the homepage and other bloggers will link to it. So freelancers have reason to sex up their content in an effort to attract eyeballs.
Meanwhile, every editor of a website with one of these new payment models acknowledges a common quandary: People are willing to wax philosophical or crack jokes for free, but not to do real reporting. “One of the gaps we have is that I would like to have more reporting,” says Sicha. “The scale of the economics doesn’t work for that, necessarily.”
“It’s a huge problem,” says Sam Apple, founder of The Faster Times. “What we found is that people won’t work the phones and do a heavily reported piece—that won’t necessarily get more traffic—for what we pay.”
And speaking of hard news, even the worthiest of stories may not draw many clicks. Why would someone invest several weeks in reporting a story if he or she risks getting virtually no payment for it?
Welcome to the Internet news world. Having been in the newspaper business for the last 20 plus years, I have watched the demise of this industry to the rise of the non-paying industry of reporting/writing for the Online Publications. As much as I love to write, I'm discouraged by the inventive ways that publishers "don't" pay for their journalists today. So I had to branched out to include developing marketing for businesses in my area, to pay my bills; but can't get medical insurance from any of the three media companies I work for, muchless dental or Life insurances. As for investigative reporting, I believe this will be almost non-existing by the next decade, because it can't be paid for. Not to get too political, but remember the Framer's of the U.S. Constitution gave us the right for Free Speech, to be watchful and have checks and balances for our government. I don't see that happening in the future...do you?
#1 Posted by Sandie Reed, CJR on Mon 9 Jul 2012 at 02:52 PM
Nice to see CJR looking at freelance which is critical to the way journalism works today but this article does not really say all that much. It singles out a few online-only outfits and analyzes a model no one who is in the labor class the model relies on believes can work. This was not the right article on freelancing.
#2 Posted by tip of the iceberg, CJR on Tue 31 Jul 2012 at 01:49 PM
did your dad being a senior editor at Newsweek have anything to do with you getting a job there?
#3 Posted by just curious, CJR on Wed 1 Aug 2012 at 12:30 PM
I think this is an interesting topic and I agree with Sandie Reed. Part of what's been disheartening about going from working for mainstream newspapers to working as a freelancer is taking note of the fact that most outlets don't want to pay for quality journalism. They're more interested in paying for clicks on articles, or selling the notion of building a platform to writers instead of actually paying them what they're worth. So in essence, the failed and failing business model that is making print newspapers fall apart has been appropriated by the online world.
If you tell smart people who sell ideas for a living that what they do doesn't have any monetary value at all (because there are now content farms and the like) how do you expect them to create the kind of content that people will actually want to read? When people talk about the death of journalism as an industry, they fail to hash out the economics of what we do - it's all fine and nice to serve your country and your community around you by doing the grueling work of actually talking to people on the phone and in real life. But who can afford to do that if no one pays you to do it?
Essentially, the old school hierarchy of newspapers - where good old boys hired their friends, sons, nephews and other relatives for the prime beats - has now trickled into the blogosphere where the people with relationships with other editors get paid work and the rest of us have to play catch up. It's quite disheartening.
But eventually anyone who really values this work will have to come up with a personal business model, maybe even one that doesn't include producing journalism at all. We'll have to be more like Sojourner Truth, who said, "I sell the shadow to support the substance."
#4 Posted by Joshunda, CJR on Thu 9 Aug 2012 at 01:59 PM
Being a business journalist, I'd make the point that page views have an unlimited supply and a finite worth, so its quite obvious to me that the industry is in a race to the bottom.
#5 Posted by Anonymous, CJR on Tue 21 Aug 2012 at 06:44 PM
This click-for-bonus model is rather like the experiment in which monkeys are given simple tasks and rewarded with either grapes (the good stuff) or slices of cucumber. (see: http://youtu.be/g8mynrRd7Ak ). It will remain an entertaining demonstration (111,000 views, so far) so long as monkeys are not covered under American wage and hour laws.
How this system of non-compensation is deemed legal for human writers, no matter how young, foolish and unsintered, would make for an interesting* news article--were any media outlet equipped to report and publish such complex and non-nipple-baring legal insolence.
Absent that, the new media's servants, indentured and otherwise, will no doubt continue to debate the merits of their lords' various business models without conclusion. But it was the great blogger and receiver of corporately-funded public speaking fees, Samuel Johnson, who boiled it down: "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money."
*To me, at least, and perhaps a few dozen other graying FON naifs; certainly not enough potential traffic there for anyone to get paid.
#6 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 09:49 AM