NYT op-ed writer is so mad publications won't pay for his awesomeness

Old_Tony: Socialist.

Never thought I'd see the day.

 

Saying you shouldn't be expected to work for free is socialism? In what world?

 

Why am I not surprised that the writer's point went right past Whitman?

If only it had been in Slate...

 

The writer is offended that publications will not pay him for his work.

As I understand capitalism, work is worth whatever a buyer will pay for said work.

This is what you wrote:

"No one expects workers in any other industry to work for free. Why are writers expected to? This 'your work has no worth' bullshit has got to stop."

Requesting that work be valued on any basis other than the market veers toward socialism. It's also quite inefficient, leading to the collection of "rents" for the producer. "Rents" are bad. If not quite socialism, it's still a really, really, really far left position to take.

By the way, academics write for academic journals for free. Lawyers take on pro bono work for free. So I reject your premise. People expect plenty of workers in other industries to work for free.

 

Great argument.

 

Except he's not just speaking up for himself, he's speaking up for each and everyone of us.

Back in 2007, we had a meeting with the entire sports department and the editor and managing editor to discuss the dismal state of affairs. I spoke up in that meeting and asked "When are we going to stop giving it away for free?" The managing editor's response was something along the lines of "Our research shows that if we don't have it on our website they'll get it from somewhere else."

Really? What will they get "somewhere else?" They weren't going to get our credentialed reporters who are at the games and in the locker rooms. Instead, what they get from somewhere else is a guy on his couch watching on TV. If that's what they want, then so be it. But maybe they should have researched a little harder, because real sports fans want real, informed information on the teams they follow.

 

But not enough to pay for it. Especially not in 2013, when real sports fans can find real information on the team's Web site, for example, after watching the game on their 60-inch HDTV, and listening to it get rehashed on sports talk radio, and come to their own conclusions. For free. (Not counting the cost of Internet service and cable.)

 

Pro bono work is clearly defined as charity. Academics are expected as part of their job (well-paid) to have works published.

I'm not a tax-lawyer, but I'm betting pro bono work has some very nice benefits at tax time. Do you think a writer could take a lot of deductions for free articles?

You want to cite market forces, but the market you're referring to is for crappy, unpublished writers. I don't think (at least I hope not) that a NYT op-ed writer fits that category. If it does, then there's also no difference between a guy's blog from his mom's basement and the NYT, either, right?

 

I guess they don't need to pay lawyers, either, because everything you need to know is somewhere on the Internet.

 

Okay. I'd like for you to construct an LLC for my side writing job. I'd also like to do some consulting, so be sure to include that in the LLC. I also need you to be on retainer, in case I need to consult with an attorney.

I, of course, can't pay you for these services but PM your information counselor so we can get this rolling.

And, yes, because of the Internet, I can most of the heavy lifting myself, but based on previous experience, I know that having some documents on law firm letterhead will make me look more prestigious.

 

I didn't find it to be tongue-in-cheek. He is writing with humor, but he isn't writing something he doesn't believe.

They would go to Yahoo and get the AP's version from a credentialed reporter, often -- possibly even the majority of the time -- built around the same quotes. The beat writer might be better and probably has more detailed info. But the difference isn't nearly great enough to overcome "free."

Since paywalls started, how many times have you clicked on a headline that interested you, only to end up with a screen asking you to pay up? And how many times have you decided that the information in that story was going to be so worthwhile that you'd gladly pony up your credit-card info and the five bucks a month for a subscription?

 

And just as there are peripheral benefits to pro bono legal work and academic writing, there are peripheral benefits to pro bono punditry. Not everyone who writes is a professional writer, or wants to be. Many simply like to have their voice heard, to help drive the conversation, to persuade, to change the world.

If there is a market for his work, why isn't anybody paying for it?