| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: Beware of Health Magazine |
Topic: Beware of Health Magazine
| Author | Message |
| meandmylaptop | Posted – 7/8/2008 12:24:54 AM | show profile Hi all, Just FYI: There is some WEIRD stuff going down at Health magazine these days in regard to freelancers. Anyone else hearing about this? I have heard from two writer friends now who have had bad experiences. One, a long-time contributor, was basically abruptly "fired" because the EIC was apparently in an axing sort of mood (the writer's editor told the writer that she didn't agree with this and that the writer did nothing wrong, but she could do nothing about it), and then another writer friend told me today that after writing for the magazine for a while, and getting great feedback, one of her stories was being "held indefinitely" and instead of being paid the $2,000 fee per her contract for the completed story, she was sent a check for $175 for her "research" -- less than a kill fee. The next week, she was offered a paltry idea fee for a feature she pitched, per her editor's request. The upper eds wanted to assign it to someone in house, but wanted all of her research too (studies, contacts, interview notes -- all for peanuts). Huh?! Anyone else have bad experiences with Health? Or good experiences? I, for one, won't be pitching them ideas until there's new leadership on the masthead. |
| Marie | Posted – 7/8/2008 1:23:40 AM | show profile It sounds as if they're looking for ways to cut back. Your friend should look at her contract, and if it's payment on acceptance, demand her/his full fee. If it's being held, theoretically it's been accepted, and payment is due, assuming your friend signed a payment on acceptance contract. Otherwise she/he should ask for the piece back (any contract I've ever signed has a statement about either party being able to rescind the contract at any time) and sell it elsewhere (a close scrutiny of the contract is needed). Holding a piece indefinitely cannot be a way of getting out of paying someone (again, I'my assuming it was a payment on acceptance contract). On the submitted idea, your friend needs to request a higher fee for her research. An idea fee is simplly for the pitch. Otherwiese, again, she should take her idea and research elsewhere. She submited the pitch on the assumption that he/she'd be the one writing the piece. |
| seeattleme2 | Posted – 7/8/2008 1:12:21 PM | show profile I agree. Have your friend tell the editor in no uncertain terms you will be pitching the story to other magazines, and that the research etc. is hers. Have her CC the letter to the Managing editor. SHe could of course say she already sold the pitch and is on assignment for another magazine--but they'll just take the assignment and tweak it a bit so it's not exactly the same. If they are cutting costs they should say so. Not try to lift ideas and reassign them to staffers to save money. That stinks, but as I've said before on this board, countless times, in the pink ghetto it happens ALL THE TIME. (The Health EIC probably learned how to do it at previous stints at Mademoiselle, Cosmo, Redbook. She probably thinks it's just the way things are done, she's been doing it for so long.) A friend of mine had a nightmare experience with Health. Literally it nearly got legal. |
| seeattleme2 | Posted – 7/8/2008 1:15:01 PM | show profile By the way, always take a kill fee. Never accept a "researchers fee". That allows them to print the story practically as is with someone else's byline. They tried to pull this on me at Fitness once. I balked, asked for the story to be killed, and they ran it for full fee--we shared a byline (they did very little different--added two sidebars and cut a lot of it, that's it. |
| Metro Writer | Posted – 7/8/2008 2:16:36 PM | show profile Never, ever give up your notes. If it's in a future contract, strike out that clause. No editor is entitled to your notes, which may have the names of sources and information not used in a particular assignment, but that you can use in another article. You do need to keep your notes, however, in case the editor asks you to double check on something that a reader balked about, but that doesn't mean that the editor gets to see anything but that reference (and it would not be the original). |
| ISR | Posted – 7/8/2008 3:04:49 PM | show profile I'm working on a feature for them now and am generally having a good experience with Adam Martin. Hope it stays that way. Is that right about giving up your notes? I wrote a feature for Family Circle and they've asked to see all my transcripts --- I thought that was okay, and standard for some places. |
| abqwriter | Posted – 7/8/2008 4:08:03 PM | show profile I have my notes stored from 8 years ago in case I need to pull out something from a source or find their contact info, but I have never given my notes on a piece to the editor. It would literally take a lawsuit. The magazine is paying for a completed work, not all of the research notes and contacts. If they kill the piece, fine. Pay the kill fee. But a paltry amount for notes? No way. |
| seeattleme2 | Posted – 7/8/2008 5:00:30 PM | show profile No you have to give notes to a factchecker on a sensitive story. This is Journalism 101. The lawyer often neds to see them. The fact that another person sees YOUR notes before publication ensures you didn't go back into your notes after a lawsuit is filed and "change them" to reflect that the interviewee actually said. You must allow the factchecker to see your notes. Many lawyers will ensure a story is killed if they don't see notes that back up your quotes/story. Photocopy your notes if you must. But you gotta give em up. This is the factchecking phase--after story acceptance. It is not related to this particular topic. factchecking doesn't begin until the story is accepted. But someone else must see your notes if you want them to protect you from getting sued for libel. Unless you're willing to go to jail when a judge asks for them, in contempt of court. That from my lawyer and two decades of experience reporting stories on, among other things, terrorism and terror cells, child abuse, drug addiction, prison crime. Things that get you sued. Things generally not in the newzlite and Oprah backwash that is Health magazine. |
| seeattleme2 | Posted – 7/8/2008 5:04:05 PM | show profile And lisa, at some magazines, you are wrong: the contract specifically stipulates that a writer must surrended ALL interview notes as well as a host of other things. And this is on the Cosmo contract--not exactly the New York Times magazine. The more sensitive your story material, the more likely yur notes will get called in--and it's probably in your contract. Sorry--but if it hasn't happened to you you either have an editor/factchecker who doesn't know what he/she is doing OR you're not reporting on material that's controversial /sensitive/in any way involves a lawyer. |
| snappiness | Posted – 7/8/2008 5:20:02 PM | show profile Well, here's my experience: I do a lot of business writing and many of the stories I do are sensitive, like not very flattering profiles or stories about an event in which not everyone looks good. I've dealt regularly with lawyers on threatened lawsuits and antsy interview subjects, and for nationals at major media companies including Time, Hearst and Conde Nast. I've never been asked for my notes, not for fact-checking, not for the lawyers. I have noticed that it's sometimes in the contract, but I've never volunteered them to a lawyer or fact checker and I've never been asked. For fact checking I always provide my sources, and sometimes will note what came from which source, but that's it. Sometimes I have given my notes to an editor, but usually when an emergency comes up and the editor needs to edit my story without me (death in the family was the most recent one). I just sent the notes and let them have at it. Seattleme raises an interesting point that if you show the notes early on, it can document them with a third party so there's no question about them being changed. I hadn't thought of that. But apparently neither have my many editors at New York's top publishing companies. |
| jseconds77 | Posted – 7/8/2008 5:30:37 PM | show profile man, the op is in a tight spot. sorry! sounds like another case of a publication being cheap and not honoring a contract. To go from 2k to $175.00 is awfully quick. But hey, there are some newspapers actually trying to make $40.00/freelance story sound financially interesting! if a piece is being "held indefinitely", then they've accepted it and just don't know when to run it. They owe you. Lastly, you completed work on a mutual contract. They owe you for your time=kill fee. Like a lawyer who lost the case for you, he/she didn't say they WILL WIN, regardless of outcome, you'd owe them for their time. WIN this one for "us" :) |
| seeattleme2 | Posted – 7/8/2008 6:18:32 PM | show profile snapiness, I only work with the Big Three, and all have asked for notes but only as per a request by the lawyer. My lawyer recommends it as a general rule, so I rpovide the originals and make photocopies. I ain't gonna be sued for libel. Sorry. It ain't even getting to the deposition stage. I can't afford it. |
| seeattleme2 | Posted – 7/8/2008 8:06:28 PM | show profile oh snapiness--if you provide transcipts from interviews notes are irrelevant. I do not tape. |
| snappiness | Posted – 7/9/2008 5:36:58 AM | show profile I don't tape either. I'm surprised that I've never been asked and you are asked all the time, at apparently the same publishers. I've danced around libel a few times, but I figure the lawyers will go after the publisher, not me, since I don't have any assets worth taking. And the publishers are definitely more antsy about it than I am, yet they're still not asking for notes. Well, something interesting to think about. |
| abqwriter | Posted – 7/9/2008 7:57:52 AM | show profile seattleme - my reaction was to the original post when a story was being killed. I wouldn't accept the fee for the notes. In my opinion - and maybe I'm wrong - I wouldn't have the same obligation to turn over my notes if the story was being killed. Am I wrong on this? Does a writer still have an obligation to turn over notes for a story when it's killed by the publication? As to turning over my notes for a story that was completed, yes, I would. My notes backed up my editor (who had already backed up me) when a subject claimed they didn't say something. Guess I ought not respond on the fly. |
| seeattleme2 | Posted – 7/9/2008 1:42:49 PM | show profile No, if the story is killed you do not need to turn over your notes. snap: it's true, they usually go after the publisher, but they have to name you in the suit, I believe. And the dmage done to your reputation isn't worth it. In short, even if the smallest discrepanies come up, having details documented in notes makes your case, and having someone see those notes before they are even challenged--after print or in the fact-checking process --protects you. It protects your reputation, your credentials, and it protects you legally. I don't often get asked because I turn them over right away--my lawyer advises me to do this (MY lawyer, not the publisher's lawyer). But I have often gone over those notes with the publisher's lawyers when an issue comes up. Often before a challange is even presented. Notes also prove you were where you say you were and you were taking notes. If in your notes you have information that is unflattering to the subject, but chose not to use it, that gets you out of malicious intent (say, you have in your notes a subject making racists remarks but don't use them; he later tries to sue you for libel and you show whoever--look here in my notes I have this and this, if it were my intent to defame the guy I'd have used this material...) and having someone see those notes beforehand ensures that the material wasn't added later on. I learned that from a very seasoned, award-winning reporter. And my lawyer agrees. |
| Homer | Posted – 7/9/2008 5:43:06 PM | show profile I've been writing and reporting for 20 years and not once have I ever taken notes during an interview, aside from noting what the person's wearing and their mannerisms. Every last word goes on tape. I've never understood how anyone can achieve 100% accuracy by jotting down what a person's saying. How can you possibly write that fast and still listen closely to what they're saying for a follow-up? Obviously people do it, but I've never left anything to chance. I've also never been asked for my tapes (and I've written for many national and international magazines and newspapers, including one or two of the "big three") but I have sent my own transcript of them to the fact checker. That's expected and I have no reason not to comply. If there's a law suit, a plaintiff could still say you fudged your notes (even inadvertently) at any point -- even while you're taking down their comments right there in front of them. They can never say that about their own voice on tape. |
| seeattleme2 | Posted – 7/9/2008 5:51:09 PM | show profile Tapes are preferable, but difficult to manage on a tight deadline (with transcription times/ fees, etc.) And in a court you have to actually PROVE a writer fudged the notes, not just assume it (innocent until and all that), and tapes can be a liability if for example, you can't quite hear a word on the tape and add another in it's place, and later it's proven that word is wrong. If you are super sure of your tapes and go over them with a fine-tooth comb, and your fact-checker does as well, of course it's the best defense --it can also crucify you if you don't have time to and neither does your fact-checker. There is also the problem of tapes being bad--unclear, or the recorder ceasing to work for some reason, etc. --then you have an interview you can't use, have to re-do, or rely on your note--taking skills. Using tapes often makes people get lazy while note-taking, and when the tape turns out bad or gets lost or eaten or damaged, you are &^%$#@, to say the least. Also, in all this, those suing libel have to prove damages. It's not enough to say a fact is wrong in a story, that fact has to be libelous, or damaging in some way. And that's where the issue of malicious intent comes in. I once read that a great exercise to see how accurate you are as a notetaker is to compare your notes directly with your transcripts. That's fine if you use a recorder everytime, which I do not and there are many (excellent) reporters who do not, they have their reasons. |
| seeattleme2 | Posted – 7/9/2008 5:54:55 PM | show profile And Homer, as print now competes with the Internet, those deadlines are tighter and tighter. There simply isn't time for transcribing hours and hours of interview tape. And your own transcritions could be wrong. Just because you've never had a problem with your method doesn't mean problems can't occur. If you write for an Internet site--like Slate, or Yahoo--transcibing is probably out of the question. No one has the time to wait/waste. |
| snappiness | Posted – 7/9/2008 6:25:06 PM | show profile taping v. notes I do the serious reporting before I visit. I do it over the phone so I can type, and I type pretty darn fast, as fast as most people talk. Then when I visit, it's just for color and I can hand-write those notes in my reporter notebook. I've had tapes fail too many times to rely on them, so I always take notes. Sometimes I tape for one reason or another (maybe one visit is the only time I get with the subject) but I always note take also as a backup. Then the minute I get into the car I re-read the notes and jot down extra stuff I remember. If I didn't get it all, I call back and say, "You mentioned X, can you tell me about that again?" Tapes. Transcribing. Meh, it's a pain in the butt. |
| Homer | Posted – 7/9/2008 6:51:36 PM | show profile The shortest deadline I've ever had was one week, and even that was for an online version of the mag. I had no problem interviewing, transcribing and writing in that amount of time. I guess it would be more difficult if you had a long interview and a 24-hour deadline. I've had my recorder screw up only once, and that was at the beginning of my career. Luckily I was able to get the subject back on the phone and it was a short piece. I guess because of that one glitch, I've been super careful with recorders to make sure it never happens again. I prefer tapes, too, because I'm obsessive about accuracy. While I'm transcribing, if I'm ahead of myself and I type "someone" and upon re-listening, I realize they've said "somebody", I'll go back and correct it. Call me anal, but I wouldn't want to take the chance if the person for some reason never says "someone". If I used it anyway, that just wouldn't be an accurate representation of the person's speech patterns. I know lots of reporters who have no problem paraphrasing but I do. But again, most of my work is in mags and I have the luxury of time. And I can't tell you how many times I've had subjects contact me after publication to say it's the first time they've been accurately quoted. That always blows my mind. In our business, is accuracy not Job One? |
| seeattleme2 | Posted – 7/9/2008 7:42:20 PM | show profile I had daily deadlines all the time. (Report story in the a.m. or afternoon, file by nine pm) I've never had anyone say a quote was wrong. I have had subjects want to clean the quotes up a bit, or change the wording. But the stories I've completed without a tape recorder are no more accurate than those without. I've actually had subjects--esp with police, etc--ask me not to use a recorder. Some are uncoofortable with them, some have other reasons. Especially the sources that aren't sure they want to be named --whistleblowers, for example. You need to be flexible. And accurate. |
| 1410dhm | Posted – 7/10/2008 10:25:14 AM | show profile >the newzlite and Oprah backwash that is Health magazine Funny that you say that, as the current EIC was the founding editor of O. And, yes, the quality of Health really went to shite after the move out of San Francisco. Hard to believe this is the same magazine that won National Magazine Awards in the past and was once touted as having "sophisticated literary sensibilities." |
| seeattleme2 | Posted – 7/10/2008 11:43:35 AM | show profile yeah she wasn't editor for long. Health was once a great magazine.Now it's crapola. Old galpal staff, who really know very little about health, health care, health care industry trends, health issues, or anything of very substance. But you could say the same thing about just about every magazine. Glamour. More. Increasingly, Time. and Seventeen? My God My God. Sad, really. But it's what happens as long as the boomers --the suits in corporate--are the ones with the power and making the hiring decisions. |
| Marie | Posted – 7/10/2008 9:32:46 PM | show profile So I guess this is the third magazine this editor has ruined. |
