Labor activist Jonathan Tasini yesterday filed a class-action lawsuit against The Huffington Post, the popular online news and opinion website, as well as HuffPost owner AOL and HuffPost co-founders Arianna Huffington and Kenneth Lerer on behalf of thousands of uncompensated bloggers. Tasini, a former HuffPost blogger himself, filed the $105 million suit on the claim that Arianna Huffington unjustly profited from the work of the site's regular bloggers and other contributors, which add up to over 9,000 writers. Beyond the legal bases of the suit, Tasini's case places upfront and center the question of author rights, a question that needs an answer as we move ever closer to the age of digital-only journalism.
Founded in May 2005, The Huffington Post grew into a media giant in a matter of a couple years and has now developed into a full-fledged industry leader. In February, AOL bought the news site for $315 million, a deal that principally benefited its owners. As this deal did not include compensation for one of the major components of content generation for the site, Tasini was prompted to stop blogging and eventually file suit.
It is true these bloggers never entered into a written agreement regarding pay, yet the case raises an important question: Is it acceptable not to pay those who contribute to a business's success so long as no contract is violated? Thousands of bloggers provide much of the original content for the site, which otherwise "aggregates" from paid outside sources such as The Associated Press. The rights of these online journalists should not be forgone in pursuit of a business model, regardless of how successful it may be. Not compensating these writers establishes a dangerous precedent that will have implications for the future of journalism.
It may well be over the top for Tasini to liken Ms. Huffington to a slave owner, but it gets at the right concept: Her media empire was built upon the bloggers' pro-bono contributions while the company sees all the profits.
The Huffington Post has responded by saying it provides bloggers with a huge platform to display their work, which they see as on par with monetary compensation. Without this exposure, the defendants claimed, the bloggers would lose the necessary publicity to widely distribute their content.
They make a valid point. One of the biggest obstacles for a journalist is finding a platform for their work, and the news site provides just that. But publicity is no substitute for wages and does not diminish the fact that Ms. Huffington and others profited from the unpaid labor of others.
As the field of journalism evolves into exclusively online content, we at the Daily fear this practice could hinder future bloggers and journalists. The Huffington Post is one of the biggest players in the field. To compete, other companies must engage in the same detrimental practices.
Ms. Huffington has created a very successful business, one valued at over $300 million little more than six years since its launch. Its bloggers should be fairly rewarded for contributing so much to this success. For a site that calls itself "The Internet Newspaper," The Huffington Post would do well to establish the right precedent for the future of online journalism.
