| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: Freelancing for Fluff: Does Content Matter When You Get Paid? |
Topic: Freelancing for Fluff: Does Content Matter When You Get Paid?
| Author | Message |
| ItGirl | Posted – 1/6/2006 3:23:19 PM | show profile | email poster I periodically freelance for a magazine that prints and writers nothing but fluff, the type of stuff that is really reaching for cool factor and trendiness. This comes at the expense of publishing stories about anything of substance or real impact. Ideologically, I am questioning my involvement with this publication. If I didn't write for it, I'd rarely, if ever, even pick it up. I am solely a part of it at this point for the extra cash I earn from writing trash. Have you ever freelanced in for an entity that ran counter to your journalistic standards? |
| ItGirl | Posted – 1/6/2006 3:24:58 PM | show profile Yes, I wrote the message quickly, so if you're going to extol the virtues of being typo-free, keep it moving ... |
| fake.it.til.you.make.it | Posted – 1/6/2006 3:43:19 PM | show profile I struggle with this all the time. I don't, however, write for trendy magazines like the one you write for, but it is ''fluff'' that I write. And yes, the world will go on if I don't write these stories. But a paycheck is a paycheck. I think that there seems to be an idealist in all of us writers for some reason that we feel that we have to contribute to some great cause. But really, if we all did that we'd be poorer than we already are. I try to think of it as this: if you worked on staff anywhere else, you wouldn't exactly have to believe in the company or what it publishes. So I guess it's just up to you if you want to continue. Maybe I didn't answer your question, but I just wanted to comment :) ------ http://writerwannabehack.blogspot.com |
| clairezulkey | Posted – 1/6/2006 4:20:37 PM | show profile | email poster If you can afford to turn down work, then there's nothing wrong with doing that. But you never know when a clip that might seem fluffy to you could help you get a gig at a 'non-fluffy' publication. ------ Editor of MBToolBox |
| making cents | Posted – 1/6/2006 4:45:05 PM | show profile I like service-oriented writing, and I get to do that fairly often. But, I also write a bunch of advertorials for a local company. Ethically, I struggle with that a bit, but the hourly rate works out well, they're quick to turn out, and it puts me in touch with a lot of contacts in this area, some of which have proved useful for the service-oriented pieces that I work on. When I have to turn something down, I always drop the advertorials prior to a ''real'' article, but work is work... I enjoy the act of writing, and so long as I'm not lying, I'm ok with what I do. |
| cmorningside | Posted – 1/6/2006 5:52:20 PM | show profile You know, this will sound really cynical and negative, but you have to realize this is a world where one doesn't become a celebrity for their talent anymore insomuch as they do for being an heiress. Paris Hilton, anyone? I don't have a clue how this happened beyond conspiracy theories and drunken, angry rallying. Whatever. But have you ever thought about, you know, sneaking in the odd subtle, subversive thing into your fluff pieces? Is it possible or will your editors catch it? ------ |
| overthehillwriter | Posted – 1/6/2006 6:00:35 PM | show profile | email poster fluff cycle What if doctors only saved people who deserved it? Or lawyers only defended the innocent? Or waitresses only served food they liked? Making a living is just that. If you're lucky, you will like 80 percent of what you do. In any profession, this is true. Everyone, EVERYONE, compromises to put food on the table. Some day when you are rich and famous and the next Mark Twain, you can write exactly what you want and believe in. Being a starving artist is highly overrated. Good luck! Compromisingly yours, Freelancey |
| flipflap | Posted – 1/6/2006 7:30:53 PM | show profile <<But have you ever thought about, you know, sneaking in the odd subtle, subversive thing into your fluff pieces? Is it possible or will your editors catch it?>> Gosh, this sounds like fun. Maybe because I'm just finishing up a piece that dragged on & I'm feeling rebellious. Just curious--has anybody done this & gotten away with it? Or gotten caught (pre- or post-publication)? |
| activeverb | Posted – 1/6/2006 8:22:34 PM | show profile I've written for tons of publications that I would never read (and in fact don't read). That's the nature of being a full-time freelancers. Sometimes I write stuff I care about; sometimes I write stuff solely for the money. But I don't mind; I figure the money stuff subsidizes my personal work like fiction. Life is a balancing act and you have to find a balance that works for you. What's really bothering you about all this? Is the work merely below your standards or do you consider it unethical? Are you doing too much trash work for the money and not enough stuff you care about? |
| romina.c | Posted – 1/6/2006 8:31:12 PM | show profile | email poster Will it get in teh way of a career? Are you embarrassed by your writing for the fluff mag? Will it get in the way of other more serious opportunities? |
| activeverb | Posted – 1/6/2006 8:35:07 PM | show profile Personally, I think this is a terrible idea. If you contract to give a publication a certain piece in a certain style, you should do it. If you think an assignment is beneath you, just turn it down. But if you do decide to this, you should accept there is a chance you'll be caught and never get another assignment from the publication. Mostly, it seems this is a passive-aggressive way to get fired. <<<<But have you ever thought about, you know, sneaking in the odd subtle, subversive thing into your fluff pieces? Is it possible or will your editors catch it?>> Gosh, this sounds like fun. Maybe because I'm just finishing up a piece that dragged on & I'm feeling rebellious. Just curious--has anybody done this & gotten away with it? Or gotten caught (pre- or post-publication)?<< |
| kaceclosed | Posted – 1/6/2006 8:54:48 PM | show profile I think the word ''sneak'' tripped you up. I see nothing wrong with doing the assignment, and then, if you happen to know of something non-mainstream or a great interview subject who might not be who they would immedietely think of, then I say totally bring it in--I've done that a few times and was surprised that they kept it in, and like to think I'm doing my small part in trying to stick to my beliefs and ideals while writing the piece. |
| MGENOVA981 | Posted – 1/6/2006 8:57:49 PM | show profile Writing Fluff I love writing fluff. It's fun and the genre serves a purpose of getting readers to believe they're cool. I worked for Sephora as a contract employee and was amazed what folks will shell out in that kind of store just to feel part of a cool experience. The exploited work force felt special working there. |
| activeverb | Posted – 1/7/2006 12:19:38 PM | show profile My feeling is if you think that writing an article in the way a publication wants would compromise your ''ideals'' you just shouldn't do the piece. I've turned down assignments from supplement makers whose products I thought were ethically dubious. In this case, though, it sounds like the writer just doesn't like the publication, but fluff articles and publication serve a reader need. That's the important thing to remember. I've written plenty of articles that I personally would never read for many magazines I personally would never look at. But that doesn't mean the publication or articles aren't of value. For instance, I happily write advertorials for the money. The advertorials exist for no purpose than to push the sponsors point of view, but there's nothing wrong with that -- advertising certainly has a legtimate purpose. Do I enjoy writing advertorials? Not really, but I enjoy the money. Do I feel they debase my ideals more than writing an award-winning journalism piece? Nope -- I go back and forth between the two, realizing they serve different purposes and I try to give the client (whether a company or magazine) a fair effort for the compensation. <<I think the word ''sneak'' tripped you up. I see nothing wrong with doing the assignment, and then, if you happen to know of something non-mainstream or a great interview subject who might not be who they would immedietely think of, then I say totally bring it in--I've done that a few times and was surprised that they kept it in, and like to think I'm doing my small part in trying to stick to my beliefs and ideals while writing the piece.<< |
| cmorningside | Posted – 1/7/2006 12:58:08 PM | show profile | email poster ''My feeling is if you think that writing an article in the way a publication wants would compromise your ''ideals'' you just shouldn't do the piece.'' Well, I think what I was trying and maybe failing to get at in my haste was that -- in lieu of being able to publish the kinds of pieces that you want to publish -- that there are ways around the trashiness of what you're doing. The world is a puffy place, let's face it. So, this isn't about compromising one's ideals more than it is about letting's one own voice peek through, without necessarily letting it overwhelm the entire piece or going after the organization you're writing for. For instance, and this may be a really pathetic example, but if you *have to* do a profile of some moronic celebrity, maybe they support a charity that they can string together two or three sentences about. That's might not be what your editors might be looking for, but they may overlook it and let it slide if it's just a graph buried deep within the 'puff piece' about who they're sleeping with these days. At the end of the day, everyone's just looking to fill news hole (at least at the newspaper level), so as long as you don't come out and write something that goes completely against the politics of the organization you write for, a lot of this stuff will and should fly under the radar. But, yeah, if you're asked to compromise your ethics entirely, don't do it. I was once faced with handing over all of my moral rights on any article I wrote for a major client. Meaning: the intent of my pieces could be changed by the paper, and I wouldn't be able to do boo about it. Guess that's why I don't do any journalism these days. <shrug>. |
| activeverb | Posted – 1/8/2006 11:53:45 AM | show profile That's all cool. Ideally, the thing is just to accept that fluff pieces have their place and do a good job on them, but make sure you are doing things that matter to you, too. <<Well, I think what I was trying and maybe failing to get at in my haste was that -- in lieu of being able to publish the kinds of pieces that you want to publish -- that there are ways around the trashiness of what you're doing. The world is a puffy place, let's face it. So, this isn't about compromising one's ideals more than it is about letting's one own voice peek through, without necessarily letting it overwhelm the entire piece or going after the organization you're writing for. For instance, and this may be a really pathetic example, but if you *have to* do a profile of some moronic celebrity, maybe they support a charity that they can string together two or three sentences about. That's might not be what your editors might be looking for, but they may overlook it and let it slide if it's just a graph buried deep within the 'puff piece' about who they're sleeping with these days. At the end of the day, everyone's just looking to fill news hole (at least at the newspaper level), so as long as you don't come out and write something that goes completely against the politics of the organization you write for, a lot of this stuff will and should fly under the radar. But, yeah, if you're asked to compromise your ethics entirely, don't do it. I was once faced with handing over all of my moral rights on any article I wrote for a major client. Meaning: the intent of my pieces could be changed by the paper, and I wouldn't be able to do boo about it. Guess that's why I don't do any journalism these days. <shrug>. << |
| Marie | Posted – 1/8/2006 1:04:03 PM | show profile What you consider fluff, others don't. Don't be so rigid about what's worthy journalism. Not every piece of writing has to cure a social ill. I often think fluff and trend pieces are harder to write than so-called serious, heavily reported pieces, whcih can be carried by the facts. There's a lot of room for voice and good writing in trend pieces. Sometimes you can connect the trend and the fluff to broader issues in the culture. One statement from you, one quote from an expert, and you've done it. You've given the readers a little something to think about, whether they want it or not. You can't really sneak things into a piece; everything is heavily edited these days, but add in odd, even irreverent facts here and there, and see what gets cut. Really, there can be interesting challenges in fluff, because they're much more dependent on voice and style. |
| SFElisaW | Posted – 1/8/2006 10:55:54 PM | show profile Writing fluff well is a great way to demonstrate your writing style. Just make sure you counter it with some clips on more serious topics - business or science. Being able to say that I have written for everything from Newsweek to Glamour to Home Resources Outsourcing today has served me well in interviews - it shows versatility. |
