Interesting post about what the NYT pays op-ed writers with big pic of John Kerry

http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffbercovici/2011/04/14/why-the-times-pays-writers-even-when-it-doesnt-have-to/

Not sure you have all been following the news of the Huff Post being sold to AOL and now some bloggers suing Huffington and AOL, since they had blogged for free and are now not going to cash in with the acquisition. I have found the discussion quite interesting, especially since John Kerry is technically one of those "unpaid bloggers" (somehow, I doubt he is going to join the lawsuit :). It ends up that the NYT pays for their op-eds except for politicians. That makes sense. But they do pay varying amounts for op-eds -- in exchange for exclusivity.

The Huff Post never had exclusivity for unpaid bloggers, which was why a JK op-ed might appear on the Huff Post and DailyKos on the same day. This is why IMO the lawsuit has no merit and will be thrown out. We have all had our issues with Arianna's site over the years, but I would say she was pretty upfront with unpaid bloggers -- they were never on assignment, never forced to post a certain number of times, and never asked to have content for HuffPo and HuffPo only. Basically, these bloggers see a lot of money and are trying to get it. Well, that would be like if DailyKos got sold, and I as a diarist demanded money from Markos. Pretty absurd, especially since there are plenty of paid staffers at Huff Post now who actually do create original content (like Sam Stein).

Bill Keller has taken to bashing Huffington Post as of late, I suppose being on the defensive for the NYT's new paywall. Again, some stuff on the Huff Puff is lame, but Bill Keller's beef with them is aggregation. I don't know about the rest of you, but I think aggregation is an art form and highly valuable. I can't read the entire internet so aggregators make it much easier. The lament is that journalists who have to work very hard for investigative stories are being "ripped off" by aggregators like the Huff Post. Well, that's not true for me. If the Huff Post prominently features a big story (like the Rolling Stone story on the Kill Team), I go to the source and read the entire article. I think instead the Huff Post should be bashed for their sensationalistic headlines which often run counter to the underlying facts of some of their pieces. All of this is part of the ongoing fight between old media and new media, where I feel like new media could do a better job, and old media simply don't get the new world we are living in.

came up at the hearing Kerry had - I think last year - on newspapers. He was speaking to a google exec. What he questioned was whether or not there was an value to them for the even that much content. To me, it seemed the obvious answer is yes - otherwise there would be nothing in the aggregater's news feed. It would seem that some small (and I mean minuscule) value could be paid each time something is part of what is on the screen. The less obvious answer is that the aggregater finds "users" for the full content that it would not otherwise have had. The question is who is really doing who a favor - or is it symbiotic?

It is interesting they chose Kerry as the blogger/op-ed writer - and I do think that he and Teresa can get by without the $50.

(as an aside, another member of the panel the Dallas Morning News owner, has changed the paper to a very closed paywall which I think is a disastrous policy, as that means nobody outside of subscribers will read that paper again, but I digress).

Basically, I would include Twitter as an aggregator as well. Without the Huff Post and other leaders on Twitter, it would have been a lot harder to hear about that Rolling Stone piece. The fact that it was THE top of the fold headline in the Huff Post told me that it was an explosive article, which it was. Whereas, if I had just visited Rollingstone.com, I don't know if I would have clicked it without context or even worse, if I just didn't hear about it at all. If a decision is made down the line that the Huff Post would have to actually PAY just to post a headline plus 2 paragraphs (I have been noting how many paragraphs they sample and sometimes they put one paragraph up, other times 2, but they really are just offering a tease, not a ripoff), well, that totally destroys the internet and what made it so great. But the truth is the Huff Post already does pay wire services -- notably the AP and Reuters -- to publish their entire articles, so that is no different from a newspaper which pays wire services.

There is another type of "aggregation" that has been around way before the internet: the re-type. You've seen them. The New York Times puts up a major investigative piece. Then later that day the Washington Post puts up the same story summarizing what the New York Times said plus maybe getting a couple of quotes to fill out the article. That is hardly original reporting but is considered normal and necessary in the newspaper business. So, again, I don't get what the NYT is whining about. Especially since us non-subscribers pretty much have to receive a link in order to read their articles (and view their ads). What really is at issue is that the NYT is jealous of the Huff Post's success. Instead of complaining about the Huff Post, they should study why it is successful and use some of their tricks, like aggregation. If the NYT started aggregating, wow, that would be so valuable. And also, they are constantly stealing stories from bloggers and NOT attributing so they are one to talk.

P.S. -- I just checked the Huff Post, and I swear right now it's all original content at the top. Everything reads "Huff Post reports" plus gossipy links to AOL sites like Popeater. I think they are pulling back from aggregation for their own content. Which actually is a shame since I think it is best to link to the best the web offers.

From what I hear, the NYT has been kind of trying to find a business model to make things work. I suspect it might also be that they are the people, who were always told they were the cream of the crop - and they succeeded in getting jobs at the paper of record. They see - in many ways - their world rapidly changing and they hate it.

I know when I saw the hearing, I agreed with the newspapers deserving something. Kerry's question like many, was to spark debate, so I am not sure what his view was. Now, I see that the aggregators create a forum or a market place for articles. I can't imagine a manufacturer asking a store for money for displaying their product. (In actuality many stores set the conditions)

I remember you saying that some papers that take the cheap way out and mostly go with the AP will have little to sell. In some ways, the NYT should be considering that it really is a content provider and their future revenue will be their subscribers and money from all the people sent over from the aggregators. I can't help but believe that as loyalty decreases - and it already is, the latter category will grow while the former shrinks.

The important thing is that there is a model that produces a diversity of high quality content.