Study Hall Digest 6/17/2019

By Study Hall staff writer Allegra Hobbs (@allegraehobbs)

The Taffy Brodesser-Akner discourse isn’t really about Taffy, but I think we all know that. “When I started doing the ‘I don’t get out of bed for less than $4 a word’ thing, people started paying me $4 a word,” the veteran magazine writer said in a Cosmopolitan profile pegged to her new novel. “Wait, what???” said a thousand underpaid freelance writers on Twitter.

So freelancers expressed dismay at what is honestly a shocking pay gap and that dismay was misconstrued as PERSONAL ATTACKS on Taffy Brodesser-Akner. Most criticism from freelancers was directed towards the publications that other writers have to beg for significantly less (50 cents a word is, in my experience, fairly standard, but a lot of writers don’t even get that). That criticism, and the emotional response to discovering the degree to which you’ve been shortchanged, is perfectly valid, and a discussion about how the myth of meritocracy taints labor conditions in media is long overdue. But all that seems to have been drowned out by bizarre accusations that such critics are simply jealous, bitter, or foot soldiers for the patriarchy (???). Feminism!!!

No one’s going to argue that Taffy isn’t a great writer, but the fact of the matter is that if publications can afford to give her $4 a word, they can afford to better compensate other writers. There are surely many male writers being paid as much or more who are writing for the same magazines, but they’ve avoided being at the center of a Twitter maelstrom because they keep it to themselves. They should follow Taffy’s lead and be transparent about their rates so we can more effectively take collective action. We can’t depend on individuals demanding and receiving $4 a word based on the meritocratic idea that they’ve earned it; we need to fix the systemic issues that let publications get away with paying writers relatively little in the first place.

Michael Lewis legendarily got paid $10 a word. There were rumors on Twitter of “a certain marquee Vogue writer” getting $6. In sharp contrast to such aspirational paychecks, a deep-dive in Medium last year on freelance pay rates found the median rate to be between 25 and 50 cents per word, and also noted that publications often pay flat rates of around $500 for 1,000 to 2,000-word pieces. Contracts at magazines are getting scarcer and scarcer, and digital publications aren’t adopting that freelance structure as much. There are problems here, but it’s not a famous, omnipresent documentarian of celebrity culture getting paid barely enough to make a six-figure salary. Do you know how much your editors make???

***

Addiction coverage is often very bad, but a new collective of (good) journalists and experts is trying to change that. Over 60 journalists, researchers, doctors and activists came together to create Changing the Narrative, a comprehensive resource identifying (and debunking) repeated inaccuracies, harmful narratives and stigmatizing language common in coverage of addiction and drug policy. The site also includes a directory of experts media outlets can turn to for accurate information and commentary.

But why are addiction and drug-use topics that are so riddled with errors in the first place? According to Maia Szalavitz, a journalist specializing in addiction and neuroscience who helped launch Changing the Narrative, “decades of drug war propaganda and ‘anti drug education’ like DARE have made reporters and editors *think* anyone can report and write about drugs without any background in the area.” Then there’s the fact journalists covering addiction stories are often general assignment reporters or specialize in crime and police rather than health and science. So “a ‘new’ harsh treatment approach is often covered glowingly, when there’s overwhelming data that shows that this is counterproductive,” noted Szalavitz.

Now the trick is to get media outlets on board and educate journalists. Szalavitz and the rest of the team are hoping to meet with editorial boards and outlets and to speak at journalism conferences and schools. “We will also reach out when we see errors and try to get corrections,” wrote Szalavitz. Their success will depend on those outlets being receptive to criticism.

***

Public editors are in short supply, so CJR is supplying their own. The Columbia Journalism Review has “assigned” four editors to serve as watchdogs over four large media outlets: Gabriel Snyder for The New York Times, Ana Marie Cox for the Washington Post, Maria Bustillos for MSNBC, and Emily Tamkin for CNN.

The project’s success will hinge on the degree to which these outlets choose to engage with CJR’s criticism. Because these stand-in public editors aren’t actually affiliated with the outlets they’re critiquing, there’s not much motivation for the outlets to seriously internalize those critiques.

“We’re hoping the institutional weight of CJR will help, as will the fact that these critics will be devoted to a single news org,” tweeted CJR editor and publisher Kyle Pope. “But ultimately it’s up to the outlets, and whether they want to take this seriously and engage. I can’t predict.”

Longread of the Week: Everyone on media Twitter this past week seemed to be talking about the latest of many (MANY) trend pieces on sobriety, this one from the New York Times, featuring photos of young people drinking seltzer through a funnel. Terms like “sober curious” abound now, and some ‘sober’ people drink sometimes, which is not so much sobriety as just…drinking sometimes. The problem with trend pieces is you can write the same one once every five years and no one really notices.

EVERYTHING ELSE

— Out Magazine almost fell apart during Pride Month, according to a deep-dive from David Uberti at Vice on the near-destruction of the magazine. As the months dragged on and the company continually failed to pay freelancers thousands, editor in chief Philip Picardi threatened to walk out. Some last-minute funds prevented mass walkouts and a departing editor in chief, but the magazine’s reputation among freelancers has been tainted.

— Vanity Fair takes us inside the recent shake-up at Vice, where CEO Nancy Dubuc is scrambling after being told by HBO the network won’t renew Vice News Tonight (Vice Live had already been cut, after only two months). Dubuc reportedly has other plans up her sleeve, including a new focus on podcasting and global distribution, and Vice is gearing up to release a new documentary series on Hulu. You know who isn’t worried about any of this at all? Vice co-founder Shane Smith, who is already a billionaire on paper!

— What is Quillette? Imagine a “journalism” website that is insatiably horny for missionarysex, free thought, and skull-centric race science based on the research of a child rape advocate. That’s what Quillette is. It most recently published the totally baseless findings of a fake extremism researcher and actual far-right troll alleging close ties between journalists and Antifa — a story that endangered those journalists. Seems bad, no? But Quillette’s only reigning principle is “free thought” and you cannot deny the above thoughts are free, totally unburdened by accuracy and ethical concerns!

— Good union news! Vox Union secured an incredible contract that includes $56,000 salary minimums, guaranteed annual raises, 16 weeks of paid parental leave, and more.

— Bad union news! BuzzFeed management cotninues to refuse to recognize the BuzzFeed News union, nearly 130 days later. Two employees accepting awards at the Mirror Awardsthis past week used their time on stage to urge union recognition, and the union pledged a walkout at the New York office this afternoon. But still crickets from Peretti!

— Speaking of BuzzFeed, as the company struggles for profitability, it’s focusing on a strategy of selling branded products throughout retail stores, mostly linked to its food vertical Tasty. It expects $260 million in sales for 2019 (double the sales of branded products in 2018). Not a bad strategy for a food site, but impossible to replicate across other platforms! Also it’s not…media?

— GQ published an interview with its fact-checker, who is a former male model, about his diet and exercise routine, both of which are…intense! This prompted a discussion about how far behind men’s media is when it comes to discussing body image. “Try to ~thought experiment~ Elle doing an interview in which they discuss who on staff has the best body,” tweeted Atlantic writer Amanda Mull.