Wil Wheaton rebuffs the odious and stingy HuffPo

October 28, 2015 • 2:00 pm

Wil Wheaton, who became famous for his teen-star appearance on Star Trek, and who now appears regularly on The Big Bang Theory (a show I’ve never watched), was asked by PuffHo if they could re-post one of Wheaton’s own website posts, “Seven things I did to reboot my life.” Here they are, if you’re interested:

  • Drink less beer.
  • Read more (and Reddit does not count as reading).
  • Write more.
  • Watch more movies.
  • Get better sleep.
  • Eat better food.
  • Exercise more.

That’s good grist for PuffHo’s “life improvement” mill, so it’s no surprise that they wanted it, especially because Wheaton’s so well known.

What then happened to Wheaton is exactly what happened to me: PuffHo asked if they could re-publish one of my website posts, and I asked them, “What are you paying?” And their response—the same one they gave to Wheaton—is that they don’t pay but they can give you valuable exposure. Thus the title of Wheaton’s post describing his run-in with Arianna’s site, “You can’t pay your rent with ‘the unique platform and reach our site provides‘.”

His account of his interactions with the Odious Site, and one of his tw**ts:

A very nice editor at Huffington Post contacted me yesterday, and asked me if I would be willing to grant permission for the site to republish my post about the seven things I did to reboot my life.

Huffington Post has a lot of views, and reaches a pretty big audience, and that post is something I’d love to share with more people, so I told the editor that I was intrigued, and asked what they pay contributors.

Well, it turns out that, “Unfortunately, we’re unable to financially compensate our bloggers at this time. Most bloggers find value in the unique platform and reach our site provides, but we completely understand if that makes blogging with us impossible.”

I translated this on Twitter thusly:

Screen Shot 2015-10-28 at 1.23.43 PM

Although Wheaton isn’t sure he “made the right call,” I think he did. As the Wall Street Journal points out, HuffPo may be worth a billion dollars, and is projected to bring in $168 million in revenue this year. (While it has yet to turn an operating profit, HuffPo says that’s because it’s plowing the revenues into growth.) But what this journalistic octopus is doing is completely devaluing professional writing. Hopeful writers will write for free, counting on getting the exposure on PuffHo needed to turn their avocation into a profitable career.

That usually doesn’t happen, and so we see a bunch of young writers giving PuffHo the means to earn its millions, and all they get is unproductive exposure. But exposure, as Wheaton says, won’t pay the rent. This is what’s killing serious journalism all over the U.S., and driving down the wages of those who do earn money.

I won’t write for HuffPo until they pay for my words, and neither will Wil. Yes, I write here for free (it cost me money to keep the site up), and I get no revenue from ads. That’s because I write for my own amusement, and to expel my thoughts into the ether. But if other people want to make money from those thoughts, they’ll have to pay me.

93 thoughts on “Wil Wheaton rebuffs the odious and stingy HuffPo”

  1. The same is true for musicians. I get at least one “opportunity” per week to play at a fundraiser for a “worthy cause”. (question: are there any fundraisers for un-worthy causes?). There is no money for the talent, but a promise of “great exposure”. The caterer gets paid, the bartenders get paid, the cleaning staff get paid. The musicians…..not so much.

    Many of the local watering holes won’t book a band for a paying gig unless they play a weekend for free, “just to see if you can bring in a crowd.” It is the responsibility of the band to entertain the audience, not provide it.

    I always offer to come in and drink for free for a weekend. If I like the beer, I’ll be sure to provide the venue with the appropriate “exposure.”

    As a musician, the only thing exposure will get me is frostbite or arrested.

    Peace,

    Paul

  2. Oliver Sacks kept journals most of his life. When he had enough to publish a book, he permitted the book to be published, thereby sharing his wisdom with readers and turning a profit. I just finished reading the last of Oliver Sacks’ books I hadn’t yet read: “Oaxaca Journal”. It was delightful.

  3. Yes, PROFESSOR CEILING CAT, YOU DESERVE to be paid for what you write. This is the best site for many reasons and the one I turn to for many reasons. I would happily make a contribution to your site (monthly subscription?)to keep you churning out the funny, informative, and eclectic posts. And all because I FB’d you. Imagine that!!

    2. I contribute to Jesus & Mo via Patreon, and would happily include you. Now that you’re retired, you should consider it. Just think of the extra cowboy boots you could buy. Imagine if just 10% of your followers contributed $1 per month, a lot less than the cost of a monthly magazine, and a lot more quality reading.

    1. I had not realized that until you mentioned it. SBM is one of my favorite movies, but I have only seen it maybe 3X.
      But most people would know Wesley Crusher from STNG quite well.

  5. One piece of advice that I must give here is that you really should watch The Big Bang Theory. It is hysterical.

    You do need to watch from the beginning because lots of character development goes on, and you will,be lost if you start in th middle. I made the mistake of not watching it at the beginning, so I am only up to the beginning of Season 4.

    I suspect that you will really enjoy Sheldon’s evangelical, creationist mother.

    1. I second this comment. I may get in trouble for saying this, but I think Big Bang Theory is the only funny sitcom on broadcast TV–I don’t get cable. And it is, for the most part, a very intelligent funny show.

        1. Yes, it really jumped the shark with an episode where Leonard and Sheldon talk to each other about their feelings.

          That’s ridiculous for men full stop, let alone academic scientists.

      2. I third it, and second darwinwins’ comment. It is the only sitcom I watch (even reruns) because it is the only one that makes me laugh out loud (even the reruns). It also has jokes that are funnier to those with a PhD.

    2. I certainly watch it, and have been delighted. To their credit they are evolving the characters a bit as they ‘grow up’, and it certainly is a unique sitcom. But I do feel that it is losing some of its spark.
      Modern Family, on the other hand, is just as jawdroppingly clever and funny as ever.

    3. Agreed it was the funniest up until the time they introduced Amy Farah fowler and the other squeaky voice. Completely ruined the show IMO.

    4. I can’t stand it. My brother-in-law is a fan and keeps it running on TV all the time so I’ve seen a couple of dozen episodes in my life and I don’t think I’ve laughed once at any of them. I hate sitcoms, that might have a lot to do with it, but I honestly hate all of the characters and cannot identify with any of them. I’m a lifelong geek, but those are people that, if I ever met them in real life, I’d actively avoid.

      1. + 1

        I’ve never watched it but my husband does all the time. When I’m overhearing it from the next room (before I scramble to get some white noise going), it’s like, “blah, blah, blah, Heisman *!laugh track!*, blah, blah, blah, vagina *!laugh track!*, blah, blah, blah, Fermat’s last theorem *!laugh track!*, blah, blah, blah, colonoscopy *!laugh track!*…

        Bleah.

        1. LOL at me! Make that, “Heisenberg.”

          (Can I help it if the MSU quarterback is being floated as a possible Heisman candidate?)

        2. I think you mean Heisenberg, I don’t think sports and BBT get along well. My biggest problem with the show is that it tries to be smart but it just isn’t. It’s a bunch of people who are trying to play smart but they are all dysfunctional in ways that would make me avoid them. Plus, so much of the show is just throwing in random reference to geeky things like that somehow gives you geek cred. It doesn’t.

          2. While I don’t want to derail the thread any more than has already happened, it isn’t that hard to throw in random snippets of geeky subjects here and there. That doesn’t save the show IMO, I still hate the characters, I still hate the format and I don’t care if they all walked around in purple pants and were painted green, that isn’t going to make the basic faults any better, at least IMO.

          3. Ah, so quick to correct me that you didn’t notice my self-catch a mere nine minutes after I posted the mistake? 😉

            Fully agree with you about TBBT.

    5. I love it too. I’ve even bought them on either DVD or Blu-Ray, and every time they’re re-run on TV, I watch them again.

      The channel that plays it here is currently running the latest series (nine), but also replaying it right from the start and are up to about the 10th episode of the first series.

      At one time three different series were playing at once on three nights of the week. It was great!

    7. The Big Bang Theory is entertaining, and I have to admit that I relate to many (most!) of the geek culture references. However, I got tired of some of the tropes after awhile, in particular the one in which practical applications of physics and mathematics (personified by Howard, the engineer who “only” has an MS from MIT) are somehow intellectually and morally inferior to theoretical and “pure” experimental physics (personified by Sheldon, Leonard, and Raj). It’s analogous to the belief held by some that you’re a sell-out and cognitively inferior to apply your “pure” biology and biochemistry knowledge to biomedical and translational research, or to *gasp* teaching medical students.

      Another trope that I find irritating is that the characters Bernadette and Amy, both biologists, are portrayed as careless/inept (e.g. with infectious agents) or unethical (e.g. with drugs of abuse and experimental animals) in their research. These peeves just got up my nose and I couldn’t enjoy the show any longer.

  6. I stand by Wil! I met him at a Comicon once…very friendly fellow.

    I hope more people stand up to Huff Po; they really need to pay for what they publish.

    2. This is hilarious! I suggest PCC updates this post with this. Did you gets read the “updated” images all the way to the end? Don’t miss the butt and pee pee drawings. Notice that HuffPo updated the article with a proper link and you have to find the saved imaged as posted by The Oatmeal … sorry I am too lazy to find again the links!

        2. Thanks for the clarification. The word “git”, as in “you stupid git” is derived from “get”, and originally meant “bastard” (literally).

  8. May I propose a parallel with academic (‘predatory’ or not) publishers:
    – They don’t pay for the material;
    – They don’t pay reviewers;
    – They, sometimes, don’t even pay editors;
    – What they provide is mostly exposure.
    The bigger players in the field make a lot of money, also.

    Two notable differences that I can see is:
    – You don’t have to pay when HPost publish your work;
    – The kind of exposure provided by academic publishers is probably most critical for scientists, than that provided by HPost to journalists (or bloggers, or other ‘webwriters’).

  9. Re: That’s because I write for my own amusement, and to expel my thoughts into the ether.

    One of these days the phrase “into the ether” will be superceded by “into the quantum vacuum”.

    However, it is arguable that Greek Orthodox Christian David Bentley Hart expels his thoughts into the aether of ancient Greek science and metaphysics,
    while anti-general-relativity founder of Conservapedia founder Andrew Schlafly expels his thoughts into the luminiferous ether of 19th century physics
    and Deepak Chopra expels his thoughts into the alchemical Fifth Element also known as aether.

    Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne probably have some good thoughts about the organic compound ether, while otherwise being vigorous opponents about ethereal notions of reality.

    Many of Jerry’s readers have computers connected to an Ethernet and as such enjoy the thoughts he expels into the generic ether.

  10. This is standard these days across the web. I refuse commercial reuse of my intellectual property without payment. Return hits on my blog do not translate into income. I have to say that the devaluing of writers’ work is general – even in trad freelancing for major papers, rates have dropped and there is an expectation of ‘payment in exposure.’ All of which would be fine if that exposure was to an audience that would buy my commercial books. But it isn’t.

  11. So my royalties for this comment are on the way, right? Just kidding!

    I do hope my daily visits here do translate into some modest compensation your way.

  12. I’m glad Wil Wheaton rebuffed the Po. It is immoral that Ms Huffington is a billionaire while she pays nothing to contributors to her fortune.

    1. It is immoral that Ms Huffington is a billionaire while she pays nothing to contributors to her fortune.

      It may be immoral, but it is excellent business practice. Very much in line with the zeitgeist.

  13. I think Wil made the wrong decision. I mean, with only 2.5 million followers on Twitter amd 1.5 million on Google+, how is he going to get the exposure he needs?

    1. My thoughts exactly!

      I bet if I decided to re-boot my life using exactly the same tactics as Wil Wheaton, they wouldn’t be interested in re-publishing my thoughts.

      They want the exposure he already has!

      Oh, and I already liked Wheaton, and follow him on Twi**er – now I like him more.

  14. Obligations:
    Exercise more.
    Get better sleep.
    Eat better food.

    Important:
    Write more.
    Read more.

    Not necessary:
    Watch more movies.

    Complete disagreement:
    Drink less beer (unless wine or Scotch is substituted)

    With regard to HuffPo, follow Krauss’ advice for promoting atheism: do what you do as well as you can. Be a scientist, an athlete musician and do it for decades. If you are lucky, you can establish yourself and when you are noticeable, promote the ideas you want promoting; you will not need the HuffPo.

    Tomorrow’s writers are not yesterday’s writers and this is democratically, a good thing.

  15. I would see no reason why PCC could not except donations from those who comment here. You could set a max. if that concerns you but you and your assistants do a lot of work here and it does cost money.

    We do not hang out here because we have nothing else to do or because it’s free. The reason is that it’s good and good is worth donating to.

    Hell, Sam Harris takes donations because these things cost money.

    1. He might prefer to accept them.

      😉

      I agree. I’m quite willing to pay, esp. for a site that doesn’t suffocate me in ads!

    1. Very funny…I think. If I can remember way back to my military days – we call that foreign object damage (FOD).

    1. That’s the currency they pay in : bullshit.
      I’m just wondering if there’s a UNICODE glyph for that?
      Does this work? 💩

      1. Oh, that’s novel. WordPress initially displayed the “I don’t have a glyph for that” glyph (the box with the hex code), then after a minute or so popped up with a glyph for a steaming pile of excrement. With a grin. Quite surreal.

  18. Reblogged this on Nina's Soap Bubble Box and commented:
    It is part of the prejudice against arts, like we should be grateful for attention at all instead of being treated as educated and trained professionals.

    it’s not like HuffPo is a small struggling journal, just another predatory company showing that CEOs and Capitalism rewards the middle man, not the content creators.

    https://dykewriter.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/startrekverse-understanding-white-male-priveledge/

          1. …. which shiny table tops are named for the urea-formaldehyde resin which impregnates the paper sheet. And the formaldehyde is derived from formic acid. And the formic acid – we’re back to the ants.
            Incidentally, have you seen the Antman movie?

    2. Reminds me of how creative STEM types working for The Corporation “hold” patents in their names, but the The Corporation owns and makes the money from them.

  19. “HuffPo says that’s because it’s plowing the revenues into growth”

    By doing what, exactly? Building more manufacturing plants? Big research and development budgets?

    That claim might just be a euphemism for “We’re not making any money.”

        1. Well, you’re right, you’d think advertisers would be beating a path to their door. I just can’t remember ever working for an ad-supported company that wasn’t out there beating the bush for more ads all the time, though, and that sales-force did cost something…

          1. No, you’re probably right….there are certainly salespeople that need to be paid.

            However, I would interpret those costs as expenses, rather than investments. Otherwise, you could interpret any money-losing enterprise as making investments.

  20. To my recollection, I have not visited HuffPo since sometime during the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. I can’t say that I feel like I’ve missed much.

  21. This seems to have lost my name and email address.

    As someone who does not believe in free will, I find it strange (ie I don’t understand) that we often resort to value type judgements, eg odious in the title. I get it that we disagree with on occasion we will not want to give our work away for free especially to a for profit organization.

    But odious … I don’t think so?

  22. On a scale of 1 to 10, HP’s policy makes sense at about a 2 for original writing but makes NO sense (0) for reprinted writing.

  23. Am I the only one who never reads HuffPo? Every time I’ve gone over there I see a blizzard of puff articles, and I’ve been unable to find anything interesting before I get turned off by the clutter.

    1. I never read it. Like being caught in the tabloid section of the newsstand–sleazy, sensationalistic…

  24. “Unfortunately, we’re unable to financially compensate our bloggers at this time. Most bloggers find value in the unique platform and reach our site provides, but we completely understand if that makes blogging with us impossible.”

    1 They are not unable to pay; they choose not to do so.

    2 Unique platform and reach? Not especially, and unique doesn’t necessarily translate into value.

    3 If Huff Po provides so much value, how about fronting writers a zero interest loan for their work payable only when the writer monetizes that unique platform and reach provided by Huff Po?

  25. …also, that should read “Most bloggers -who choose to blog for us- find value”, not “most bloggers find value”

  27. Good for Mr. Wheaton. I’ve seen some of his recent work (e.g., the “encourage your kid’s geekiness” stuff) beyond TBBT and he seems to be a class act.

  28. Any artist has this struggle, unfortunately. It doesn’t help that those who market art are sociopathic bloodsuckers who dangle fake carrot upon fake carrot to get people to give away their art.

    We can’t put all the blame on HuffPo. Nearly every media company is doing this now. “Exposure” is a lie. “Being a sucker” is the reality. They know there are millions of hungry, talented writers out there. If I won’t do it for free, someone else will. When that person gets tired of being used and gives them the middle finger, they find yet another person. Lather, rinse repeat. What good is exposure if you’re only being exposed to other penny pinching publications that also want to pay you in exposure and name recognition? Publishers are colluding to ensure the state of writers remains pathetic. Basically, they’re running journalism slave auctions.

    Despite what the comments section of nearly anything online would show, people seem to think that decent writing is not a skill. They think anyone can be a good writer. Thus, they don’t think they should have to pay for it. So, they don’t. Then only talented folks who burn out quickly or long term suckers are doing the writing, so the quality slips. Along with it, goes the IQ of the nation and then we can’t figure out why nobody knows what’s going on in the world.

    It’s worth mentioning I’m one of those young writers the industry desperately needs who ended up giving up on her dream because she simply couldn’t make a living. Nobody pays anymore. I tried to sustain myself with freelance gigs, copy writing, ghost writing blogs (yes, that’s a thing), and pay per word sites. Most of them pay 10¢ a word AT BEST. Most pay closer to a penny a word. You really expect me to bang out two or three pages of high quality writing for you for $5? To reiterate Mr. Wheaton, “How about no.”

    I said, “Screw it,” and now I have a day job and do stand up comedy at night. That’s how my writing gets exposure now!

  30. I really admire Wil Wheaton for doing this. My opinion of him just keeps getting better.

    And I’m glad those things he did to reboot his life worked for him… but I stopped reading after the first one.

Comments are closed.