|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
< BACK TO Fresh Intelligence Gawker Owner Hustling For Tips, PressStill, any poor sucker willing to dish dirt on his or her place of employment in the hopes of instant riches should pay close attention: 10,000 Gawker pageviews is not an impossible goal to attain, but it will only pay you out $75 and probably requires some mention of Julia Allison if you want to get those clicks up. Here at Radar we have this thing called "ethics" which precludes us from financially recompensing sources, but we can make this offer: For everything we run, and which checks out, we will tell you the names of all the other fish that make you shit orange. And, trust us, there are a bunch of them. 
Wow, you mean on average I could make $11.75 before taxes and be unethical AND help some gross sweatshop site whose workers flee when offered a living wage? Great! Is there a Hungarian 1099 form to fill out or do I just have to say "print is dead" every time someone brings up magazines? Posted by: yoko on February 15, 2008 4:22 PM WWFNDD (What Would Fake Nick Denton Do) Posted by: moneycashhos on February 15, 2008 5:02 PM My #1 problem with Gawker Media is how much (even though little) the bloggers get paid for posting pictures or links or things sent in by readers without compensating their readers ever. In addition to that, the bloggers can write well but rarely add anything worth the clicks because they need to put out as many posts as possible to pay rent (and I'm not going to pretend to believe they don't live well)..it's the readers that add the most entertainment and commentary. So once in a while the Denton machine pays for a source that makes the company tons more..this is not the problem with journalistic 'ethics'..the problem is 'journalists' feel like their getting information from people actually making news is their work alone. It's unethical to pay someone for their insight, words, experience once it proves to be credible? The whole structure of the journalism business falls short of being ethical in the first place. Of course there are Gawker sites that do more than copy pasting, picture posting, etc...Consumerist: helping people not get screwed by businesses, posting recalls, giving financial advice. Lifehacker: Trapani actually writes codes for readers to get the most out of Firefox, software tips, endlessly making your life better. Wonkette: hardcore political reporting. Fleshbot: hardcore porn, endlessly making your life better. The bottom line is someone small always gets screwed so you can make money off simple news and when it's not news, it's Slut Machine posting clips of the Golden Girls because her readers will flock to it to scream about how much they love Bea Arthur..ensuring she'll at least get a nice lunch out of it. Will Bea Arthur be compensated? Or the person who first posted the clip on YouTube? And why are the clips posted via Gawker's mysteriously simplistic video player and not the embedding of the YouTube clip? There's something wrong over there but it's not the rare compensation to sources..it's that these people call themselves bloggers, even journalists, and live with themselves every day. Posted by: punctiliouspig on February 16, 2008 4:56 PM Advertisement |
    
 |
|
 |
|
 | ||||
Back
Streep Film with School Schooting Scene Will Go Ahead After NIU Tragedy