3 ms·

This was done as a do-gooder bill and not something that actually took into account the wellbeing of freelance journalists. Suppose I'm a journalist that speci

This was done as a do-gooder bill and not something that actually took into account the wellbeing of freelance journalists. Suppose I'm a journalist that specializes in recreational fishing for a particular region. Not only am I a journalist of what happens locally by keeping my ear to the ground, but I'm also an SME of both the types of fishing being done and also of the areas to fish and the conditions in which they bite. How easy do you think it would be for a person like that to get a full-time paying gig somewhere with benefits? Probably very hard. But a person like that can make a decent living for himself by writing for fishing magazines, sports magazines, outdoor journals, newspapers, etc. Not only does it limit opportunities for a writer like this, but it also diminishes the overall quality of all publications in an area. Because now he can't be that expert on one topic, he probably has to straddle a half-dozen fences in order to justify his continued employment. I think that this is a unique situation among vocations and it's a shame that the politicians didn't listen to the people actually being affected.

tssva 7y ago
There is nothing in the law that would require said journalist to become a full-time employee. The said journalist could continue to produce content for as many publications as they like on a freelance basis. If they were to produce more than 35 in a year for one particular publication they would have to become a part time employee for that publication which would not have to limit their ability to still work freelance for other publications or if need be become a part time employee for another publication. If the journalist produced regular content regarding current fishing conditions they could offer the content as syndicated content to multiple publications and those would not fall under the 35 work limit.
- dimator 7y ago
  Not to mention that this works out to almost 3 fishing articles per month. I would wager that that kind of throughput for fishing articles is already very rare.

tssva 7y ago

There is nothing in the law that would require said journalist to become a full-time employee. The said journalist could continue to produce content for as many publications as they like on a freelance basis. If they were to produce more than 35 in a year for one particular publication they would have to become a part time employee for that publication which would not have to limit their ability to still work freelance for other publications or if need be become a part time employee for another publication. If the journalist produced regular content regarding current fishing conditions they could offer the content as syndicated content to multiple publications and those would not fall under the 35 work limit.

dimator 7y ago
Not to mention that this works out to almost 3 fishing articles per month. I would wager that that kind of throughput for fishing articles is already very rare.