Orlando

Good point. Editor hands her a book because he knows she knows nothing about the ballparks, but never questions the attribution (or lack thereof) in the graphic/article.

Added: But I still think she should have had the good sense to attribute ... You don't have to go to Northwestern to know that.

 

Just posing some questions, not saying one way or another, but...

Let's say you did get an extra freelance piece out of an assignment on company time. But could this just be considered a fringe benefit because, let's be honest, newspapers aren't exactly the greatest about paying overtime or respecting your time?

How many times have you cut vacation short for a story or not taken vacation time because of something happening on your beat?

How many times have you worked 15 hours, but you only got paid for 8?

How many times have you had to eat expenses?

Newspapers aren't a traditional business, so sometimes, traditional rules don't apply. If it were more traditional, companies would also be held a lot more accountable for things. It's give and take. With the pay scale being what it is at most places, the least newspapers could do is offer writers a chance to make some extra money.

 

The simple old sayings "the end does not justify the means " and "two wrongs don't make a right" apply.

Reguardless of the profession you take a job knowing the rules going in. If there is something you feel that you can't comply with, you don't take the job. If you break the rules you do so at your own peril.

The bosses who give you the wink and say just don't let me find out about it in the end are doing you a diservice.

There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. The right way for all parties is to get in writing what can be done in way of freelance work up front.

 

Kind of an uncalled for cheap shot. Jemele's points are valid. As long as you stay on top of the work you have on your "real" job, there's nothing wrong with capitalizing on work you've already done.

 

How many times has your area hosted a district/state/college playoff game that you happen to be covering, and Podunk Press calls and says, "Can you give us a story, too?"

Judging by some responses on here, the $50 you get from Podunk should go to your bosses. Heaven forbid you use it to buy a 6-pack and a pizza.

Also consider the fact that having your big-time beat guy do stuff on the side possibly enhances his/her source Rolodex and connections, and the main employer easily could be getting some benefit from it.

There is no black and white here, folks.

 

Nice to see wicked's salt-water-taffy logic distender is in full throttle.

Nothing wrong with writing fresh material if the bosses are OK with it.

I think it is morally corrupt to plagiarize yourself for a paycheck, though.

And, if you are writing at an event for someone else, fuck yes that entity should split expenses with your main employer. Real, real basic fucking logic there.

I have never seen a group with such contempt for the companies that provide the lion's share of their pay, plus the insane hotel and airline frequent-customer benefits.

 

Simon, come up with a better comeback, please.

The bosses had no problem with it until there was a regime change in Orlando -- at least that's what Steve says, and since Van is not here to defend himself, that's all we know.

Where do we draw the line on plagiarizing yourself? Columnists who use the same shtick on a player over the years, i.e. Will McDonough's rants on the Texas Con Man which many times were the same thing with the words rearranged, is that plagiarizing? What about the Houston columnist who was suspended for allegedly plagiarizing his old columns?

I'm not trying to be a wiseass, I'd love to know.

There are times I've probably plagiarized myself, unknowingly. You cover the same issue for X years, you're likely to use the same three or four words together at times without intending to do so.

And Simon, many of these companies show their generosity toward these employees by cutting them loose to boost ROI from 19 percent to 21 percent. I guess the "insane" French benefits make up for it, though.

 

That pretty much says it all.

And in no particular order, the following things are true . . .

--- You knew the minute you decided to work in this field that the money likely wouldn't be good. You made that decision.

--- There are good salaries in this business. Lots of them. But you have to be flexible to get them. You may have to leave your preferred area, or work the desk, or do something else to make you attractive to the newspapers who do pay well.

--- Yes, companies can be greedy. But when was the last time you punched a time clock . . . or had your pay docked for showing up a few minutes late . . . or worked for a company that lost billions and slashed a pension you had worked a lifetime to earn?

--- Yes, it's a shame that companies are beholden somewhat to Wall Street. But would I prefer to work for a company that said, "Screw Wall Street; all we care about is good journalism"? Not on your life, and not when that company has provided me with a quarter of a million dollars in stock for retirement that I most certainly do not want to see go into the toilet. What's more important to you, your kid's college education or whether your company declined to send its hockey writer to Calgary to save money?

--- Yes, sometimes you put in some extra time that you may or may not get paid for. A Double-A baseball player doesn't get extra pay if his game goes 17 innings, either. Boo-hoo. If you really want to punch a time clock . . . there are plenty of those kinds of jobs out there. Just don't count on them letting you post on SportsJournalists.com while at work, though.

 

sorry, folks, but this is a clear-cut issue. there should be no ambiguity. if your full-time job is writing for a newspaper, any freelance opportunity that comes your way MUST be approved by your newspaper. if the paper says, "no, you can't do it," then no, you can't do it.

i recently had a chance to make some good extra coin -- lord knows, the highly-strapped mrs.shockey and i could use it -- as a regular freelance contributer for a startup cell phone company. i ran it past my paper's editor-in-chief. he said no-go, since everything internet related is a competitor these days.

as disappointing as it was, 'cause lord knows we could use the money, that ended the chase. it sucks, but everything i have is 'cause of the newspaper gig. such is life in the business we've chosen.

 

Some of the responses on this subject are amazing. You can rationalize and justify and wave your W-2s in the air, but if you don't get permission to do work on the side, you're nuts. What appears to be 'no big deal' to you could be a very big deal to your boss.

Penny wise and pound foolish--is the $1000 freelance job worth losing your salary? It may not be fair--and it usually isn't--but what's your choice?

It's going to get harder, too, now that newspapers are just part of the big media picture. You write for the paper, but they also want you for their TV and radio and internet stuff, even if they're not really sure what they're doing with TV and radio and internet stuff. And if they give you permission to freelance, how can they tell the next guy no?

Bottom line--Get permission. In writing.

 

Pretty basic. When I wrote, I always got freelance things OKed.

People who have worked for me at the however many places I have worked always understood doing freelance was possible, just get permission first.

And 21, in writing's safest, but as long as everybody was on the same page, oral permission has always worked fine for me.

 

or put another way -- " Never Assume Anything"