The sale of the Huffington Post and the reaction of contributing bloggers

The decision Arianna Huffington made to sell her online publication to AOL, for $315 million, was very controversial. Right after the announcement the Guardian was quick to inform readers why Huffington Post bloggers were accusing her of being a “sell-out.”

The main reason bloggers were outraged by the AOL deal is because they were providing content to the Huffington Post and were unpaid. Although I feel these bloggers deserve some sort of compensation it is most likely easier said than done. Determining how much they should be compensated for each blogger for the previous 6 years would be challenging.

At the end of the day, the bloggers agreed to have their work published without receiving any pay. It is unfortunate that the Huffington Post ended up being sold to a major corporation, but at the time each blogger made their contributions they must have had some reasoning behind it. They also must have believed in the publication itself and wanted to see it succeed.

In my opinion the reason beyond many bloggers goes beyond not being compensated for their work. Many bloggers were contributing to the publication because of Huffington’s political ambitions. The Guardian article discusses the fact that “AOL’s corporate ownership would see it tone down the site’s liberal campaigning.” Once the political message of this site was threatened bloggers questioned what and whom they have been providing free content for.

A Lehigh University journalism professor is quoted saying, “She has made a fortune on the back of freelance writers working for nothing, but there is a political betrayal too. She betrayed the ideals of a lot of people who were happy to work for nothing because they thought it was for a cause."

Huffington claimed she never intended for the site to be solely political. Although many disagreed with this claim and viewed it as “a deliberate rewriting of the past,” there is no way the Huffington Post would be nearly as successful as it is now if it had only been a political site. 

While I can imagine this buy out being very frustrating for unpaid bloggers, at the same time I feel that the sale of the Huffinton Post was not extremely unexpected. While this is a news outlet made by Huffington it is also a business venture she made as well. Huffington was clearly interested in making a large profit off of this business venture.

Again I am not agreeing that these bloggers should remain uncompensated for their work, however, I think bloggers should keep in mind that they were willing to take a risk in providing the Huffington Post with free content. 

A Shield Law: Can it pass and will it work?

The idea of a shield law, in which journalists and their sources could be protected, would enable in depth and honest reporting. However, when discussed among lawmakers in the past they have a difficult time agreeing on who should be considered a journalist.

According to the Common Dreams article, “Senator’s attemptto define ‘real journalism’ blasted by journalists", specifically Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-C.A.) has been very outspoken about this topic. She stated that nonsalaried reporters should not be considered journalists. Clearly, some government officials have not realized that traditional forms of journalism (from mainstream news outlets) are no longer the only way the public receives news.

Bloggers or citizen journalists may be producing journalistic content out of their own desire to inform the public on a certain subject. Just because they are acting independently and may not be paid, does not mean they should be discredited as journalists. So long as the information is truthful it should be protected and able to be shared with the public.

The Common Dreams article continues on to quote Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) who says, "The world has changed. We’re very careful in this bill to distinguish journalists from those who shouldn’t be protected, WikiLeaks and all those, and we’ve ensured that… But there are people who write and do real journalism, in different ways than we’re used to. They should not be excluded from this bill."

While it is nice that he is recognizing alternative forms of journalism, there is still the issue of journalists/ sources who expose information the government would not like to be displayed. Had an effective shield law been in place during the WikiLeaks exposure, would Bradley Manning been able to be tried and found guilty?  It would be a problem if a shield law allowed the government to hand select which journalist/sources would be protected due to the type of information they shared.

The right to freedom of the press was placed in our constitution for a reason. Journalists should have the right to present important information to the public without fear of the government’s opinion or interjection. A shield law would ease this worry for journalists however, it is uncertain whether or not an effective shield law will ever be passed.

The Common Dreams article was published in August 2013; over a year later a shield law has not been able to pass. Only time will tell whether lawmakers will be able to agree on a shield law. At this point in time however, it appears that there has not been much progress toward implementing a shield law.

Legal Insurrection creator speaks to independent media students at Ithaca College

The story behind William Jacobson’s conservative blog, Legal Insurrection, is unique when compared to other political news outlets and bloggers. Most bloggers begin a blog because they are extremely passionate about a subject. Jacobson however, was not even aware of what a blog was until a friend recommended he begin a conservative blog. Jacobson was also not very politically involved at the time he was just told that he does a good job at presenting an argument for his political views. Shortly after this recommendation he began Legal Insurrection on Google blogger in October 2012.

When I listened to Jacobson’s story it was interesting to hear the process he went through and how his blog grew from nothing into a site that gets thousands of visits per day. From this I was able to see what it takes to create an interest in a blog.

One piece of advice that stood out to me was the need to link back to other blogs. Jacobson explained that at the beginning he somewhat depended on larger blogs linking to his site and thus causing the audience interested in a certain subject to become aware of his blog. After hearing this explanation it makes sense that this is necessary to increase an audience size however, I never fully understood the importance of linking.

Another aspect important aspect of blogging is the comment section. On Google blogger, Jacobson had the choice of to allow every comment to be public or to moderate all comments. This was clearly problematic because all comments are allowed to be posted, they could be completely inappropriate or state something that should not be associated with the blog. On the other hand, if all comments have to be moderated this could interfere with conversations between audience members that could benefit knowledge of the topic and the blog overall. Many blogs have gained contributors from audience members who continuously blog.  Ultimately, once Legal Insurrection moved to its own website, Jacobson decided to have partially moderated comments. This was most likely the best way to block the majority of unwanted comments and still allow influential conversations between readers to occur.

Jacobson’s story was so interesting to me because this blog has become a major part of his life, which he did not anticipate happening at all. This is a clear example that anyone can become a blogger. Also, Jacobson is a fulltime law professor at Cornell yet (with the help of his staff) he is producing real journalism and giving readers in depth looks at important issues. Legal Insurrection and many other blogs show that even if the producer of the stories is not an official journalist, if he/she is producing important content it should be considered a work of journalism.

The idea of crowd sourcing to produce journalism

In 2006, when Robert Greenwald was in need of funding for his film “Iraq for Sale,” his co-founder of Brave New Film’s, Jim Gilliam thought why not asks the audience. William Booth describes this fundraising process in his article, “His Fans Greenlight the Project: Robert GreenwaldTapped a New Funding Source: The Audience.” They were unsure as to how successful this method would be however, once Gilliam sent a mass email to about 4,000 people they have raised the needed funds within 10 days.

This was one of the first examples of filmmakers or journalists of any kind reaching out to their audience and asking for funds. Now, eight years later it is common among independent news outlets to receive donations from their audience.

Booth quotes Gilliam saying, that this method of funding is the future for independent products. Gilliam continues to say that with these donations from supporters, the film or journalistic product produced will be “out of the control of corporations” and therefore it can truly be a form of independent media.  However, in order for this to be a success there must be a large enough audience willing to support the journalist. In the instance of Greenwald's film it helped that he had produced groundbreaking films prior to “Iraq for Sale.” Building a well-established audience can be crucial to receiving the necessary funds for production. Since Gilliam’s call to action, many other independent media outlets have been taking advantage of crowd sourcing.

The Internet has been critical for the success of some independent media outlets. With the Internet these outlets have been able to share their work more easily and gain audience members. Nonprofit media outlets have been able to grow based off of outside donations. The audience members choosing to donate to a certain independent outlet clearly feel strongly about what content is being produced. Some of these donation-based publications cannot survive without numerous donations from audience members. However, these publications differ from Gilliam’s method of crowd sourcing because their donors are supporting the outlet as a whole not a specific project. Gilliam was upfront with donors about what Iraq for Sale was and what Greenwald needed funding for.

While this type of crowd sourcing may have been rare in the past an initiative called “Beacon” is giving journalists an opportunity to receive audience funding. Beacon is an online platform where journalists can share the details of what their project is and ask for funds to produce it. Beacon has given journalists the chance to report on something they are passionate about. The only thing needed from the journalist is to spark the public’s interest in a subject and then produce the desired story.

Nonprofit Journalism: Far from perfect

Nonprofit journalism has become a growing industry. The idea behind it is that journalists will be able to publish content they feel is important and act independently of consumer (or employer) interest. On the surface this may seem to be the solution to producing journalism without outside influence however, as Jack Shafer discusses in his article, “Nonprofit Journalism Comesat a Cost,” the mainstream press and nonprofit news outlets may be more alike than one would think.

The mainstream press has been criticized for producing content to appeal to owners or investors and the nonprofit news outlets may have these similar problems. As Shafer points out, nonprofit journalists may feel pressured to appeal to the interest of their donors. For example, the news outlet ProPublica is largely funded by the Sandler foundation. The mission of the Sandler foundation seems to line up with the goals of ProPublica. Both seek to benefit the public. Although ProPublica may be organized in a way that reflects the donors interest, the work they are doing appears to be helpful. However, if the ProPublica staff was interested in doing a story that the Sandler foundation does not want to be published, it would be difficult to argue with the people who are donating $10 million dollars annually to the publication. 

Another aspect of Shafer’s article was the reason behind why readers choose to donate to nonprofit news outlets. Shafer believes that those donating to nonprofit news outlets because they will receive “psychic income.” He believes donors want to feel they had some influence on political change or that they helped have some sort of impact on society. I’m not sure if it was his intent, but Shafer seems to shape this donation outlook in a negative way. Personally, I feel that whether the donors are seeking “psychic income” or not, the bottom line is they are donating because they feel passionate about the subject matter of the outlet. These donors believe that it is important for the public to receive the content produced by these nonprofit news outlets. While these small donors may have some influence on what is published, I don’t think they can really say what can or cannot be published. The larger issue definitely stems from pressure from major donors.

The most important part of Shafer’s article may have been when he calls attention to the salary of Paul Steiger, the first editor-in-chief of ProPublica. He was getting paid more at the nonprofit news outlet than he was as an editor at the Wall Street Journal. Steiger is quoted in an article from the New York Times, stating that no one who joins his staff will have to take a pay cut. This brings attention to the true motivation of why journalists may be working there. Are they truly dedicated to goals of ProPublica or were they more interested in the monetary benefits?