The New York Times missed the real digital sweatshops

I’m rather disappointed in this piece on the dangers of blogging in the New York Times.

Not for the same reasons as the legions of bloggers who’ve already denounced it, though. The piece has a strong lead, referring to blogs as the “digital-era sweatshop.”

Seeing that line filled me with glee, I thought that finally, someone is going to say something about the exploitive pay rates that come from so-called “new media” enterprises. But no, the sweatshop comparison went away after the first paragraph. The rest of the article focused on how bloggers work insanely long hours often to the detriment of their health.

First off, I have no idea why the piece focused on blogs specifically. Being constantly “turned on” and seeking the story before anybody else applies equally to any form of media, including newspaper journalists. (I’ve written before that I don’t get the whole divide between newspaper reporters and bloggers who blog about the news…)

Heck, I’m equally guilty. While in college I literally spent 15 straight hours working on an article for a college-published magazine. The next day, I had massive stomach pains that I figured were probably from a stress-induced ulcer.

But that’s the nature of the business and it takes a certain kind of person to do it.

So, no, my issue with the piece was I wanted to see more on the digital sweatshops which is destroyed halfway through the story when reporter Matt Richtel writes that bloggers make between $30,000-$70,000 per year. A very generous estimation and why I was so annoyed with the story.

Sure, the major blogs pay that much but getting a job at one is about is likely as getting hired by the New York Times. In fact, it’s probably easier to get a freelance piece in the Times than on Gizmodo (does Gizmodo even accept freelance submissions?)

The fact is, most of the blogs that advertise opening offer a pittance: $5 per post or something insane like, $175 a month for 6 posts per week.

Or worse, they lure writers in on a “revenue share” plan, which sounds great…if the blog in question HAS any revenue.

Fresh out of j-school and desperate to find work since I’d spent all of my modest savings supporting myself through an unpaid internship, I applied for a web site looking for writers. I didn’t now much about online publishing at the time, but I figured a share of advertising revenue should be decent, since it seemed like a big site.

Well, I quickly learned that a 25 per cent share of zilch is still zilch.

That my friends, is a digital sweatshop and what I had hoped the article would be covering.