STILL MORE: but … hey! at least they are not *paying* for “the priviledge”… (like some conference goers do… ) D.
EVEN MORE: re: “if it means that the paper will do more than just highlight what the bloggers do (i.e. pay them for what they do)”
the big problem I see with this is that they have a strong financial incentive NOT to pay them as long as they can get away with it — the vast majority of enterprises trying to “save the news” (for their own financial gain) would collapse if “the suckers” that make these projects possible would just wake up and stop volunteering.
P.S. Are these people really fools, cretins, with low-intelligence or low-self esteem? Of course not… (they are just naives that don’t realize they are being exploited) D.
MORE: I do think Seth is right — a whole lot of naives are toiling away (intellectually and otherwise) for the financial benefit of few, without even realizing that they are being exploited. (I shouldn’t have given that quote, as I said, it’s pretty harsh… but it *does* go to the core of the issue… in a funny sort of way… if you can take humor when it comes to serious issues).
P.S. I didn’t mean to offend anybody, sorry if I did. D
You can beat them, Jon…:)
P.S. I’ll take a look at your stuff when you are done with it if you’d like (there wasn’t much detail on the link you gave).
P.P.S. News*Tools*? hmmm… does that refer to the participants?:) Seth would probably agree that the urban dictionary definition of the word “tool” may be giving pretty good insights into just who is financially benefiting from getting people to volunteer their ideas and insights in these sort of conferences:
” tool : One who lacks the mental capacity to know he is being used. A fool. A cretin. Characterized by low intelligence and/or self-steem.
That tool dosen’t even know she’s just using him.”
it’s a bit harsh… but the truth often is… D.