Last week, the Washington Post announced their Local Blog Network, a group of independent D.C. area bloggers plucked from the blogosphere and varying degrees of obscurity to comment on important local issues. Of course, when I first heard about this, I was shocked that I hadn't been asked to participate. I mean, I may not be able to intelligently discuss things like "politics" or "the economy," but surely at some point they'll need someone to weigh in on Marvel Comics vs. DC Comics or which Leprechaun film is the best. And then they'll be sorry they didn't invite me! I mean, has Sommer Mathis even seen a Leprechaun film?
In all seriousness, this seemed like a great idea, and I've been enjoying the posts so far. It's always good when local bloggers get some mainstream exposure. Something that sadly, seems to be harder to come by around here. Washingtonian recently put their Blogger Beat on "hiatus" (which, in online-speak, typically means, "gone for good"). It was a fun feature, though reading it, one could easily have drawn the conclusion that there was little other than fashion and food blogs in D.C. More disappointingly, The Express, which was probably the first local media outlet to hop on the blog bandwagon with its daily Blog Log, has noticeably begun eschewing local blogs in favor of quotes from celebrity gossip sites and blogs that have little-to-no D.C. connection.
So the Local Blog Network probably would have stayed controversy-free, except that Maryland Politics Watch pulled back the curtain on the Washington Post deal:
There's a lot more to Adam Pagnucco's post, and it's well worth reading. Especially in regards to the implications this has for the writers the Post does pay.
Having said that, I don't have a problem with what the Post is doing. Money may not not be exchanging hands, but something potentially even more valuable is: Exposure.
I'll be honest, aside from DCist, I don't read any of the blogs whose writers were selected for the network. I don't know if they blog for fun or because they hope it might one day lead to a regular paying blogging gig (or a better paying blogging gig than the one they already have). But either way, being featured on the website of one of the premiere newspapers in the world in exchange for some free content isn't at all a bad deal. I can see why it wouldn't appeal to everyone, and I don't blame Pagnucco for passing. But it's not a bad deal.
I recently read I'm Dying Up Here by William Knoedelseder, a great book about the stand-up comedy scene in the 70s. It specifically focuses on The Comedy Store, which at the time, was the most successful comedy club in Los Angeles. Its roster of comedians was a virtual who's who of future superstars: Jay Leno. David Letterman. Richard Pryor. Andy Kaufman. George Carlin. Garry Shandling. And dozens more. The owner, Mitzi Shore, was raking in money hand over fist, mainly because she had a brilliant business model: She didn't pay any of the comics.
Not a cent. Not the headliners, not the comics struggling to break into the business. When someone--Leno, I think--suggested maybe just giving some of the younger guys cab fare to get home at night so they didn't have to go out of pocket to perform, she wouldn't even do that. Shore claimed that she wasn't so much running a business, as a workshop where comics could hone their craft. The comics disagreed with this assessment, called a strike, and started walking a picket line until she was forced to start paying them.
Now obviously, if you own a comedy club, there's no reason why you wouldn't pay your established stars. They're the ones bringing in the customers. They're the ones keeping you in business. Based on the book's description of Shore's personality, I don't have a hard time believing that she truly bought into her bullshit rationalization for not paying her comics. That doesn't mean it still wasn't bullshit, though. But when it came to the younger comics? I really see nothing wrong with her not paying them. Even if you toss the stupid "workshop" justification out, it was a simple quid pro quo situation where both parties benefited. She got a product she could sell, and they got to perform on the same stage as Richard Pryor.
That's basically what the Washington Post is doing. And just like the comics performing at The Comedy Store for free eventually got to the point where they started booking paying gigs in Vegas or Tahoe or wherever, the bloggers in the Local Blog Network can use the exposure they're getting from this as a springboard for bigger and better things. Then it'll be up to the Post to decide whether to start paying them or let them go and replace them with more free labor. I suspect there will a lot more arrangements along these lines as print and online journalism merge, so people might as well get used to the idea.
Oh, and not that you or the Washington Post asked, but Leprechaun 2 is the best film in the series. Leprechaun and Leprechaun 3 aren't bad, and obviously, Leprechaun: Back 2 tha Hood has far and away the best title. But for my money, Leprechaun 2 is where it's at.
In all seriousness, this seemed like a great idea, and I've been enjoying the posts so far. It's always good when local bloggers get some mainstream exposure. Something that sadly, seems to be harder to come by around here. Washingtonian recently put their Blogger Beat on "hiatus" (which, in online-speak, typically means, "gone for good"). It was a fun feature, though reading it, one could easily have drawn the conclusion that there was little other than fashion and food blogs in D.C. More disappointingly, The Express, which was probably the first local media outlet to hop on the blog bandwagon with its daily Blog Log, has noticeably begun eschewing local blogs in favor of quotes from celebrity gossip sites and blogs that have little-to-no D.C. connection.
So the Local Blog Network probably would have stayed controversy-free, except that Maryland Politics Watch pulled back the curtain on the Washington Post deal:
Five weeks ago, I received an unsolicited offer from the Washington Post. They asked if they could post my picture and biography on their website and link to every new blog post appearing here if I agreed to produce regular original content for them at their request. I turned them down. Why?
Because they wanted me to work for them for nothing.
The Post is organizing a "local blogging network" linking to selected blogs from their website and asking bloggers to submit original content, which would be edited by them. The Post's rights to that content would be enforceable under a written agreement. That agreement was written as follows:Dear [Blogger],
This Agreement is intended to cover the republication of [blog] (the "Work"), written by [author] ("You") and originally published at [blog address] ("Your Site"), on WashingtonPost.com (the "Site") by The Washington Post ("The Post") and any original blog posts that you submit.
You and The Post agree to the following terms:
1. You grant to The Post a non-exclusive right to republish the Work (in whole or in part) on the Site in real time simultaneous with Your own publication of the Work, as well as the right to adapt, edit, display, store, and promote the Work in connection with such republication on the Site. The Post may also display or republish the Work or any part of it in forms or on media reasonably related to the Site, such as on mobile devices and in e-mail newsletters.
2. You shall facilitate the establishment of technical means to allow The Post to exercise the rights set forth in Paragraph 1.
3. You represent and warrant that the Work is Your own creation, that you have all necessary rights and permissions to grant the rights set forth in Paragraph 1, and that The Post's republication and distribution of the Work will not violate any copyright or other right of any third party. You agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Post from any claim related to the Work.
4. As full consideration for the rights granted by You to The Post, The Post shall credit you and provide a link back to Your Site whenever The Post publishes the Work on The Site.
5. The Post's right to republish the Work on the Site in real time simultaneous with Your own publication of the Work shall terminate on 30 days notice by either party, although such termination shall not affect The Post's rights with respect to previously published material from the Work. You and The Post may renew this agreement with written notice prior to the termination date.
Your signature:
_________________________
Every blogger signing the agreement is expected to participate in a blogger "discussion" initiated by Post editors or other bloggers at least once a week. Each blogger is also expected to stick to a "workflow plan" in which he or she will manage the other bloggers and submit extra material for a week on a rotating basis. In return for this commitment, the bloggers receive… absolutely nothing.
There's a lot more to Adam Pagnucco's post, and it's well worth reading. Especially in regards to the implications this has for the writers the Post does pay.
Having said that, I don't have a problem with what the Post is doing. Money may not not be exchanging hands, but something potentially even more valuable is: Exposure.
I'll be honest, aside from DCist, I don't read any of the blogs whose writers were selected for the network. I don't know if they blog for fun or because they hope it might one day lead to a regular paying blogging gig (or a better paying blogging gig than the one they already have). But either way, being featured on the website of one of the premiere newspapers in the world in exchange for some free content isn't at all a bad deal. I can see why it wouldn't appeal to everyone, and I don't blame Pagnucco for passing. But it's not a bad deal.
I recently read I'm Dying Up Here by William Knoedelseder, a great book about the stand-up comedy scene in the 70s. It specifically focuses on The Comedy Store, which at the time, was the most successful comedy club in Los Angeles. Its roster of comedians was a virtual who's who of future superstars: Jay Leno. David Letterman. Richard Pryor. Andy Kaufman. George Carlin. Garry Shandling. And dozens more. The owner, Mitzi Shore, was raking in money hand over fist, mainly because she had a brilliant business model: She didn't pay any of the comics.
Not a cent. Not the headliners, not the comics struggling to break into the business. When someone--Leno, I think--suggested maybe just giving some of the younger guys cab fare to get home at night so they didn't have to go out of pocket to perform, she wouldn't even do that. Shore claimed that she wasn't so much running a business, as a workshop where comics could hone their craft. The comics disagreed with this assessment, called a strike, and started walking a picket line until she was forced to start paying them.
Now obviously, if you own a comedy club, there's no reason why you wouldn't pay your established stars. They're the ones bringing in the customers. They're the ones keeping you in business. Based on the book's description of Shore's personality, I don't have a hard time believing that she truly bought into her bullshit rationalization for not paying her comics. That doesn't mean it still wasn't bullshit, though. But when it came to the younger comics? I really see nothing wrong with her not paying them. Even if you toss the stupid "workshop" justification out, it was a simple quid pro quo situation where both parties benefited. She got a product she could sell, and they got to perform on the same stage as Richard Pryor.
That's basically what the Washington Post is doing. And just like the comics performing at The Comedy Store for free eventually got to the point where they started booking paying gigs in Vegas or Tahoe or wherever, the bloggers in the Local Blog Network can use the exposure they're getting from this as a springboard for bigger and better things. Then it'll be up to the Post to decide whether to start paying them or let them go and replace them with more free labor. I suspect there will a lot more arrangements along these lines as print and online journalism merge, so people might as well get used to the idea.
Oh, and not that you or the Washington Post asked, but Leprechaun 2 is the best film in the series. Leprechaun and Leprechaun 3 aren't bad, and obviously, Leprechaun: Back 2 tha Hood has far and away the best title. But for my money, Leprechaun 2 is where it's at.
Seriously, even for free, I don't understand how the Post passed on this sort of insight.
0 comments:
Post a Comment