Hearst to Inflate Content With Helium

It looks like Hearst newspapers will be hiring lifestyle writers through Helium, the online forum where writers can bid for work.

Hearst will follow what I understand to be the usual practice of putting stories on various topics out for competitive bid, having writers submit content through the site, then picking the best stories and paying the writers for them.

According to the article, "Hearst executives say the deal will enable its newspapers to provide local content at a lower cost than using staff resources." Well, duh. Freelancers cost less than staff and freelancers trying to underbid other freelancers are cheaper still.

I'm not a huge fan of Helium or other online bidding sites. While they may (possibly) be a way for freelance writers to generate their first clips, I don't see them as viable resources for experienced writers. Writing on spec and submitting your article with a cut-rate bid hardly seems like the best way to earn a living. After all, spec stories take time to write. Good spec stories take even more time. And after all that work, you have to seek payment low enough to beat out competitors--many of whom will probably be newcomers, willing to work for peanuts. On the whole, it doesn't provide me a huge incentive to use them.

In a statement, Lincoln Millstein, senior vice president for digital media at Hearst, said: "Hearst is proud to be a pioneer in leveraging new models that will transform the newspaper industry. Sourcing Helium's top-notch writers will allow us to continue to deliver superior local and lifestyle content to our readers while also taking the necessary steps to get our costs in line with today's economic realities."

My interpretation: "Hearst will be happy to use freelancers who are willing to be grossly underpaid as part of a new business model for the newspaper industry. In order to save the newspaper business, financial sacrifices must be made. And if we can get our writers to make those sacrifices, that suits us just fine."

Seems to me like a pretty raw deal for freelancers. Feel free to express your views one way or the other on this. Other than providing a low-paying entry into freelance writing, can anyone recommend Helium as a source of work? While this arrangement might "transform the newspaper industry," would it do so to the detriment of writers?

Quotation for the Week of February 22

"Try not to be a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value."
-- Albert Einstein

Oh, Brave New World

For some time now, journalism has been criticized for dumbing itself down by focusing less on substance and more on jazzy presentation. Remember the movie Network? That movie was almost prophetic in its portrayal of news as infotainment. The culprit in the film was television--a medium that must have seemed quite threatening to the print media at the time. Little did they know what the future (and the Internet) would bring.

So, it's a little discouraging to read articles like this about Politico, an online news source that sounds less concerned with informing readers about significant events than titillating them with gossip. (It also sounds like a grueling place to work.) I'd like to think there's a future for real journalism--an online business model that will keep us truly informed and keep serious journalists gainfully employed--but articles like this . . . well, they just make me wonder.

On a somewhat related note, I see that Newsweek will be downsizing circulation and closing its London office. (Some of the staff were pretty ticked off to learn about this in the New York Times.) I suppose the good news is they'll be launching a new magazine in mid-May, which they say will focus on "less ambulance-chasing and more analytical pieces." (Newsweek chases ambulances?) Plus leaner staffing will mean more opportunities for freelancers to work for them as stringers.

So will print media continue to be the standard bearers of serious journalism? Will online media be able to match the depth of reporting found in print? Online readers are notoriously ADD. Generally, when it comes to online writing, shorter is better. Content boiled down to bite-sized bits under bold headings work better than lengthy tomes. Lists and bullet-pointed information make ideal Web content. But where does that leave in-depth reporting? Can you write effective online content about complex issues that require more than 1,000 words (if that many) to explain?

I think about these things and wonder. Are changing reading habits diminishing the quality of news we're getting? By going digital, are we saving trees, but losing a deeper understanding of the world?

Quotation for the Week of February 15

"The critic has to educate the public; the artist has to educate the critic."
-- Oscar Wilde

More Twitter Talk

Twitter is reportedly picking up speed in terms of usage among the Internet-literate. Twitter usage has grown from 6% of Americans online last May to 9% in November, then 11% in December, according to a report from Pew Internet & American Life Project.

I recently took the plunge into using Twitter, despite all my reservations about it possibly being a tremendous time commitment or turning into some kind of weird addiction. So far, I haven't found it to be such. But I've limited my usage. And I get the feeling there's more I could do with it than I have been.

So it's heartening for me to read that a tech expert like David Pogue is just as confused as I am about how to properly use Twitter. And reassuring to know that, while there may be some guidelines on its use, there are no hard and fast rules.

When you come down to it, what you get from Twitter would seem to be a function of what you are seeking in particular. It's probably advisable to develop a strategy for using it. There are a couple of aspects of Twitter within your complete control: the people you follow and the things you tweet about. But how to get followers? By microblogging on topics that will attract people you'd like to have as an audience? And how many people should you follow? Clearly, as Pogue points out, you can't really follow hundreds or thousands of people closely. Not and have a life.

I still don't have all the answers on using Twitter, but it's interesting to experiment with it. And I think it gives writers a great resource for finding out information, marketing, networking and so on.

Just don't spend all day doing it. Because, as Pogue concludes, "It may be powerful, useful, addictive and fascinating--but in the end, it’s still an Internet time drain."

Quotation for the Week of February 8

"I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork."
-- Peter De Vries

Someone's Starting a Magazine? (Make That Two)

With all the magazines and newspapers going under (or shrinking to the point where they might as well), it was with some surprise (and a small measure of joy) that I read that two New York-oriented magazines, Nassau Parent and Suffolk Parent, will be launched in April 2009.

Guess print really isn't quite dead yet.

Quotation for the Week of February 1

"A little learning is a dangerous thing but a lot of ignorance is just as bad."
-- Bob Edwards