The Atlantic responds to unpaid freelancer drama, offers a State of the Biz

Back when The Atlantic had a lot more poetry in it! (Public Domain/Wikimedia Commons)

Back when The Atlantic had a lot more poetry in it! (The Atlantic Monthly/Wikimedia Commons)

On Monday freelancer Nate Thayer created a buzz when he made it known that The Atlantic had asked to republish his work without offering to pay him for it. Two days later, Alexis Madrigal, one of the magazine’s senior editors, offers a very long, very personal reply that also turns out to be a meditation on the state of the industry.

Madrigal opens with harrowing details about the depths of his early freelance days, where he was paid $12 for pieces and had to go to the ATM drunk to handle his credit card balance. But he also gives the publications’ side of the freelance story. According to him, it’s not the big publications’ fault that they can’t pay freelancers as much as they’d like to (ostensibly). The economic model for online publications has become equally pressurized.

Madrigal, a digital editor, says they have six options:

  1. Write a lot of original pieces.
  2. Take partner content.
  3. Find people who are willing to write for a small amount of money.
  4. Find people who are willing to write for no money.
  5. Aggregate like a mug.
  6. Rewrite press releases so they look like original content.

Madrigal says he sympathizes most with No. 1 and No. 5, but that digital journalism mores must be taken case by case, as everyone (except the high rollers) is making compromises to keep afloat. His parting shot offers little in the way of consolation:

“Anyway, the biz ain’t what it used to be, but then again, for most people, it never really was. And, to you Mr. Thayer, all I can say is I wish I had a better answer.”

Study finds good ways to gain more Twitter followers

Researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology did a study tracking the best ways to increase one’s Twitter following, according to Poynter. The researchers studied over 500 active Twitter accounts. They found that tweeting negative statements proves to be an easy way to shoot yourself in the foot. You’ll also alienate more people if you tweet a lot about yourself and less about “information.” “Informational content attracts followers with an effect that is roughly thirty times higher than the effect of [personal] ‘meformer’ content, which deters growth,” they wrote. “We think this is due to the prevalence of weak ties on Twitter.”

Poynter lists 14 points the study concluded, ruling on what’s good and bad. For example: A detailed profile description or “bio” (good); cramming too many useless hashtags into your tweets (bad).

Jeff Jarvis has some theories about trolls

Troll warning sign. (Martorell/Wikimedia Commons)

Troll warning sign. (Martorell/Wikimedia Commons)

Jeff Jarvis has a relevant and highly entertaining essay defining trolls, those maniacal critics all journalists know well. Jarvis uses Aaron James’ book Assholes: A Theory as a backboard for his analysis, arguing that trolls are a subset of assholes with a specific edge:

“What distinguishes the troll from the mere asshole is, I believe, that he (1) has a target; (2) seeks to get a response–a rise–out of that target; and (3) believes he is acting out of some ordained moral purpose to destroy, to bring down his target. By contrast, the asshole seeks only to enjoy privilege.”

Wisely, Jarvis recommends that we defeat our own trolls simply by refusing to feed them. Zero response. But he also says that we should seek to improve our modes of discourse by refusing to swarm around troll fights (when someone regretfully feeds them). We should also stick up for those we want to defend from trolls. It’s much better, in Jarvis’ opinion, to defeat another person’s troll than to attempt to defeat your own.