Whoa. What a showdown of egos. But I'm going to have to side with Malcolm Gladwell's view of things.
Call me a journalist or call me a person who feels it's important to compensate people for the work they do, but Anderson paints a hopeless future for those with aspiring careers in the industry of information. The word "careers" is emphasized for a reason. A career means dedicating a full-time workday (and probably longer, if you're a journalist) to working as a writer combined with the radical notion that they receive pay for their time.
I hesitatingly admit I appreciate Chris Anderson's practical view of the digital media industry and I also understand that his perspective has been molded by a career in both print and digital industries. I also admit I do not know the ins and outs of what it takes to ensure an editorial staff is rightfully compensated and where that money comes from. But I'm still disappointed by the idea that an accomplished media leader is giving up on incentivizing the industry he currently runs. If I were an employee at WIRED, I'd feel pretty insecure working under this guy.
The unsettling part of Anderson's argument isn't in the content of his article "Free! Why $0.00 Is The Future of Business;" it's the fact that he published these concepts, therefore, perpetuating the narrative that newspaper industries are going under and there's hardly anything there can be done about it, (except undercompensating writers and recruiting volunteers). He could instead be using his name and his talents to come up with something much better than that.
That's where I appreciate Malcolm Gladwell's response to Anderson's propositions. Anderson is an Editor-in-Chief and I suppose in that role it's easy to get wrapped up in purely the business portion of a company. But Gladwell chimes in on behalf of all writers, including the writers Anderson is
managing, when he says "If you can afford to pay someone to get other people to write, why can’t you pay people to write?" Gladwell is commenting on Anderson's suggestion that volunteer writers will gladly step in; people who have other full-time professions but enjoy writing for fun.
It's laughable that Anderson's response to Gladwell is titled "Dear Malcolm: Why So Threatened?" Of course, he's threatened—he works for a print magazine, the very industry Anderson is encouraging to be turned over to volunteers. But the fact stands: it's indisputable that people are placing less and less financial value in industries of information—which is why I agree that we can no longer depend on them to fund journalism salaries. But I refuse to believe that media moguls and leaders of the world cannot come up with something better than slashing salaries and caving into the Internet giants who have figured it all out.
Call me a journalist or call me a person who feels it's important to compensate people for the work they do, but Anderson paints a hopeless future for those with aspiring careers in the industry of information. The word "careers" is emphasized for a reason. A career means dedicating a full-time workday (and probably longer, if you're a journalist) to working as a writer combined with the radical notion that they receive pay for their time.
I hesitatingly admit I appreciate Chris Anderson's practical view of the digital media industry and I also understand that his perspective has been molded by a career in both print and digital industries. I also admit I do not know the ins and outs of what it takes to ensure an editorial staff is rightfully compensated and where that money comes from. But I'm still disappointed by the idea that an accomplished media leader is giving up on incentivizing the industry he currently runs. If I were an employee at WIRED, I'd feel pretty insecure working under this guy.
The unsettling part of Anderson's argument isn't in the content of his article "Free! Why $0.00 Is The Future of Business;" it's the fact that he published these concepts, therefore, perpetuating the narrative that newspaper industries are going under and there's hardly anything there can be done about it, (except undercompensating writers and recruiting volunteers). He could instead be using his name and his talents to come up with something much better than that.
That's where I appreciate Malcolm Gladwell's response to Anderson's propositions. Anderson is an Editor-in-Chief and I suppose in that role it's easy to get wrapped up in purely the business portion of a company. But Gladwell chimes in on behalf of all writers, including the writers Anderson is
managing, when he says "If you can afford to pay someone to get other people to write, why can’t you pay people to write?" Gladwell is commenting on Anderson's suggestion that volunteer writers will gladly step in; people who have other full-time professions but enjoy writing for fun.
It's laughable that Anderson's response to Gladwell is titled "Dear Malcolm: Why So Threatened?" Of course, he's threatened—he works for a print magazine, the very industry Anderson is encouraging to be turned over to volunteers. But the fact stands: it's indisputable that people are placing less and less financial value in industries of information—which is why I agree that we can no longer depend on them to fund journalism salaries. But I refuse to believe that media moguls and leaders of the world cannot come up with something better than slashing salaries and caving into the Internet giants who have figured it all out.
No comments:
Post a Comment