Read on Twitter
So here's a thing that happened to me recently, that puts the whole "working for exposure" issue into an even more sinister light
#ForExposure
[Thread]
/1
#ForExposure
[Thread]
/1
I was recently asked (sorry, 'invited') by a major mainstream newspaper to take part in a live interactive event on their website. I'd be an expert on a panel who would answer questions from members of the public, in real time. Would take 1-2 hours, they said
/2
/2
I don't want to name names, but the newspaper that wanted me to do this is a broadsheet, one of several owned by a notorious media billionaire. Their website is also a subscription model one, so everything's behind a paywall.
Do I *need* to name names?
/3
Do I *need* to name names?
/3
But when I asked what the fee was for doing 2 hours work for a major platform owned by a billionaire that people literally have to pay to look at?
"No fee sorry, this is a voluntary thing"
Because of course it is/was. Same old, same old.
/4
"No fee sorry, this is a voluntary thing"
Because of course it is/was. Same old, same old.
/4
It's a bleakly common occurrence still, those with major platforms who *have* plenty of money to pay contributors, figuring they probably *can* get someone to do it for free, and therefore figure they don't have to pay contributors at all.
But this one was worse
/5
But this one was worse
/5
The work they wanted me to do for nothing? Answer questions about depression, anxiety and related therapies, from those interested/concerned with such things.
That's... that's something that should require a bare minimum of expertise and experience, surely?
/6
That's... that's something that should require a bare minimum of expertise and experience, surely?
/6
It's never right to expect people to work for free in any case, but this whole setup genuinely relied on qualified and experienced #mentalhealth professionals, giving up hours of their time, to work for nothing, to further line Murdoch's pockets
/7
/7
That's assuming they only let people who were qualified (to give valid advice about mental health, medications etc) 'volunteer' to be on the panel
If the priority was 'whoever will do it for free', who knows what kind of individual they had involved?
/8
If the priority was 'whoever will do it for free', who knows what kind of individual they had involved?
/8
Again, stuff like this is never really acceptable, but this scenario required having experts answer questions about very sensitive subjects, from people who are almost certainly going to be dealing with issues of their own
But the experts were deemed to be not worth paying
/9
But the experts were deemed to be not worth paying
/9
Worst thing is, if I wasn't busy with other work and still struggling with grief, I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE DONE IT!
Because if I didn't, we may have had vulnerable individuals getting information about v important MH issues from people willing to work for free, for 'exposure'
/10
Because if I didn't, we may have had vulnerable individuals getting information about v important MH issues from people willing to work for free, for 'exposure'
/10
And while there are plenty of such people who no-doubt know what they're doing and have the best intentions, it does seriously increase the risk of chancers and ideologues spreading disinformation.
/11
/11
Part of me wonders (suspects?) that the paper factored this in to their calculations; that they were relying on the potential guilt of people like myself, to coerce us into giving our hard-earned expertise away for free, so they can profit, in both money and kudos
/12
/12
If so, it shows an even darker side to the 'For exposure', 'Good for your CV' problem that is still endemic in numerous industries.
But then, it's 2020, things that were already bad getting noticeably worse is the general theme.
/end
But then, it's 2020, things that were already bad getting noticeably worse is the general theme.
/end
