3 ms·
I think this would actually produce higher quality and better paid journalism than the current system. Since there's no formal approval process required to ente
by thunk 17y ago
I think this would actually produce higher quality and better paid journalism than the current system. Since there's no formal approval process required to enter the market, good journalists who were previously stymied by old-style institutional filtration will have their day. And since journalism under this system is essentially free-agency, the possibility of bidding wars for pieces by (forgive me) "rockstar" journalists is highly probable, and provides a powerful incentive to do groundbreaking work. A journalist who's scored a comfy gig under the current system has no such incentive.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- brandnewlow 17y agoHow the heck do you get access to closely guarded sources when you write for "j-auction.com"?
- thunk 17y agoHrm. Well, you don't write for the auction site any more than eBay sellers work for eBay. You're your own brand, and win or lose source-cred on your own merits. And it's called "stringerbell.com" :)
- brandnewlow 17y agoI hear you. And that's how it will be for more and more folks, no matter what happens. Example, Megan Cotrell is a Chicago-based reporter who covers housing issues. She was with one news org (ChiTownDailyNews.org) for a while and now blogs for the Tribune company. Maybe in a year or so she'll be somewhere else. Wherever she goes, however, she takes her sources and contacts with her. So yes, she can pretty much get what she needs no matter who she's writing for. but getting to that point is a lot harder without a brand backing you up.