Huffington Post Doesn't Have to Retroactively Pay Bloggers, Judge Rules
|Sure, they had middle-class money and secure employment. But at least we have Twitter.|
"No one forced the plaintiffs to give their work to The Huffington Post for publication and the plaintiffs candidly admit that they did not expect compensation," Koeltl said in his opinion, reported Bloomberg. "The principles of equity and good conscience do not justify giving the plaintiffs a piece of the purchase price when they never expected to be paid, repeatedly agreed to the same bargain, and went into the arrangement with eyes wide open."
The bloggers, who filed for class-action status, argue that HuffPo unjustly profited from their work and offered nothing more than exposure -- to the site's boasted 30 million readers every month. For a young writer, coming of age in an economic crisis and with the journalism industry on shaky financial footing, all those potential eyeballs are undoubtedly tempting. Of course, many j-school professors do tell their students, "Never let anyone publish your work for free."
Between HuffPo and Patch.com, AOL has claimed in recent years to be venturing into the journalism frontier, a landscape of sustainable business models. These models stress efficiency -- as many Search Engine Optimized stories by as few (hungry and skilled) reporters for as little pay as possible. It's supposed to look good on investor summaries, but effectively discourages quality work.