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

If that's what someone decides, more power to them. For example, first-year associates aren't as busy as they used to be (if you can't tell) because document review has been outsourced to cheaper freelance attorneys.

 

No.

 

If you're a fan, you care a lot more about the off-day coverage and the notes packages that also go with game stories. Those are where the beat reporter runs circles around AP coverage -- especially on the road, where AP reporters don't spend more than a couple of minutes on the visiting team. Hard news and other issues about the team are not broken in game stories, and a real beat reporter has the access to ask some of his important questions in one-on-one situations, not gang-bang interviews. If all your questions are asked at the gang bang, you're doing it wrong.

 

No one says that work isn't valuable.

But there's not much of an economic market for it. Not compared to free.

 

Socialist.

 

What a lot of this comes back to: Journalists suck with money. They (we) never wanted to consider it in making a career choice, never wanted to consider it for the future of the business, never wanted to believe they (we) were even in a business with profit motives.

In short, money didn't matter. Until it did. Except now there's a group of people who are in their 20s like we used to be, and money doesn't matter to them, and the social norm is for them to live longer with their parents anyway, so they can go even longer with money not mattering.

 

Let me be very clear:

I don't expect this guy who went to a prestigious university and writes for a prestigious journal in Europe to write for free. And, if this column accurately reflects his values, I don't think he should write for free.

But that's up to him. He's not going to imbue his work with value it apparently doesn't have by browbeating for-profit publications into paying him.

 

There would be if people stopped giving it away for free.

There's still a market for prostitutes despite the existence of sluts.

 

Why is is incumbent on for-profit publications to save writers from themselves?

 

It's not. But if you had actually read the piece to the end, he clearly states it's on writers.

 

This is much closer to my reaction than that of the original poster, who must be a lot of fun at parties.