![]() The ends are meant to justify the means, gradually bending away from amateurism and toward professionalization. Eventually, those credits might even coalesce into something more than the sum of their parts, like a book or a full-time job with benefits. We’re supposed to be grateful just to be here, in part because the theoretical dividends are more than simply financial: every byline is supposed to beget the next, like biblical descendants. The idea that writers should do it “for the exposure” or “for the byline” has long been a justification for bad rates and functions as a barrier to entry. Especially in a climate where, in 2022, a full-time writer’s median income is $23,000 (US), according to a forthcoming report from the Authors Guild. At a moment of upheaval in the arts, the suggestion that writing’s value may simply be intrinsic-a creative act worth less than the website it’s posted on-is deeply unwelcome. These respective revelations have something important in common: when facts and figures come to light, all writers-even the ones who make a good living, or think they do-must reckon with the arbitrary value that has been assigned to their work.Ī price tag of zero arguably does the same thing. The 2020 hashtag #PublishingPaidMe, in which writers broke the hush-hush code around sharing their book advances, similarly revealed a stark disparity between the amounts publishers offered (debut) white authors and (established, award-winning) Black authors. The infamous 2019 reveal that journalist Taffy Brodesser-Akner “ get out of bed for less than $4 a word” provoked a tense online conversation about pay disparity-why editors considered it acceptable for one very famous writer to demand that rate while most other writers made cents on the dollar. Both of these silences can breed inequity. The sensitivity comes partly from the inconsistent valuation of writers’ work as well as from the attendant lack of transparency. When it comes to putting a price on creative work, it’s hard not to poke the bear. Journalism’s Wicked Problem: Save What’s Lost or Invest in What’s New?.All the Exciting Media Outlets Are Dying.People’s reactions seemed split between lamenting the decline of publications not dissimilar to Byline, those that offer young writers an entry point into the industry, and outrage that removing payment was this splashy new magazine’s proposed means of doing so. The response was one of many in a similar tenor. “I guess it’s called byline because that’s all you get if you write for it?” tweeted Bloomberg writer Rachel Metz. ![]() ![]() But the combination of business model and inflammatory headline touched an industry nerve. They’re just here to have fun: “It’s like we’re walking into a graveyard and building a bar,” co-founder Gutes Guterman told the Times. “Saving indie media” was never Byline’s stated goal. Tucked among details about a co-founder’s “Gucci slides” and a Soylent-sponsored trip she took to Art Basel Miami Beach, the reveal gives a sour twist to the headline-as was, perhaps, intended. The disclosure-“For now, contributors to Byline will be unpaid”-comes about two-thirds of the way through the Times profile. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |