Back in September, I applied, for the 3rd time, to the "legitimate" website WhatCulture which writes-and I use this term very very loosely-"articles" about pop culture such as movies, video games and what have you. After finally getting in, I wrote my first article; a list based thing surrounding the 4 best shows that got quickly canceled but had decent endings despite the abrupt cancelation. The article did so so, and I didn't really enjoy it because the way I see it, those aren't articles.
These sites that have now popularized list based articles or such are becomingly rapidly abundant. Between Cracked (the only decent one), WhatCulture, BuzzFeed (even LESS because half the article is FUCKING PHOTOS) and UpWorthy. This is the same issue I have with Tumblr. It's theses sites that don't really have content, they just have clutter. Tumblr isn't a blog because a blog indicates original written content. Tumblr is not only 99% photos but 99% not even original as the majority of everyones Tumblr is reblogging, so nobody fucking makes anything original to start with. I never wrote another WhatCulture article mainly because I hate lists and they didn't pay. Recently, they started paying, so I went back and pitched a new article which was promptly rejected, which lead me to THIS conclusion.
These sites don't care about content. They care about clicks. Sure, understandable, a click is how you get paid. But there should be a line somewhere shouldn't there that separates your financial interest and your artistic integrity? Did I just use the phrase "artistic integrity" when talking about WhatCulture? Yeesh. The article I pitched, which will now be posted here (as it was intended to originally anyway) was about how PG-13 films compromise the quality of the film for a larger net audience and mainstream monetary value, therefore the rating doesn't allow darker films to go to the places they need to go to for story and therefore it compromises the entire product because the film isn't what it could've been. I even-at the end of my pitch-said "Hey guys, I could do this as a list article with all the ratings if that's what you'd prefer" seeing as I felt that might help its chances. Apparently it didn't. Here's where my belief that WhatCulture doesn't care about legitimate quality content comes in, but moreso, my annoyance as this is the SECOND time I've pitched an editorial piece that's been rejected.
Why would you give the writer the option-when you pitch a piece, it makes you choose what kind it is, list, editorial and so on-the choose editorial, then give them, not to make myself sound great but a pretty excellent thought provoking article about a real problem in filmmaking right now, and then NOT WANT THAT ARTICLE. Why even GIVE the option to have editorials? Yes, it's your website. Yes, you choose what gets published. Yes, you're ruining your "credibility" by pushing out shit garbage like "the 8 times Skeletor rode a pony!" but I guess if that's the toilet water you want to feature on your site, then so be it.
I guess in retrospect, I should've pitched the 5 sites WhatCulture has PLAGIARIZED FROM.
Oh, haven't heard of that? Yeah, get a load of THIS.
These sites that have now popularized list based articles or such are becomingly rapidly abundant. Between Cracked (the only decent one), WhatCulture, BuzzFeed (even LESS because half the article is FUCKING PHOTOS) and UpWorthy. This is the same issue I have with Tumblr. It's theses sites that don't really have content, they just have clutter. Tumblr isn't a blog because a blog indicates original written content. Tumblr is not only 99% photos but 99% not even original as the majority of everyones Tumblr is reblogging, so nobody fucking makes anything original to start with. I never wrote another WhatCulture article mainly because I hate lists and they didn't pay. Recently, they started paying, so I went back and pitched a new article which was promptly rejected, which lead me to THIS conclusion.
These sites don't care about content. They care about clicks. Sure, understandable, a click is how you get paid. But there should be a line somewhere shouldn't there that separates your financial interest and your artistic integrity? Did I just use the phrase "artistic integrity" when talking about WhatCulture? Yeesh. The article I pitched, which will now be posted here (as it was intended to originally anyway) was about how PG-13 films compromise the quality of the film for a larger net audience and mainstream monetary value, therefore the rating doesn't allow darker films to go to the places they need to go to for story and therefore it compromises the entire product because the film isn't what it could've been. I even-at the end of my pitch-said "Hey guys, I could do this as a list article with all the ratings if that's what you'd prefer" seeing as I felt that might help its chances. Apparently it didn't. Here's where my belief that WhatCulture doesn't care about legitimate quality content comes in, but moreso, my annoyance as this is the SECOND time I've pitched an editorial piece that's been rejected.
Why would you give the writer the option-when you pitch a piece, it makes you choose what kind it is, list, editorial and so on-the choose editorial, then give them, not to make myself sound great but a pretty excellent thought provoking article about a real problem in filmmaking right now, and then NOT WANT THAT ARTICLE. Why even GIVE the option to have editorials? Yes, it's your website. Yes, you choose what gets published. Yes, you're ruining your "credibility" by pushing out shit garbage like "the 8 times Skeletor rode a pony!" but I guess if that's the toilet water you want to feature on your site, then so be it.
I guess in retrospect, I should've pitched the 5 sites WhatCulture has PLAGIARIZED FROM.
Oh, haven't heard of that? Yeah, get a load of THIS.
You can read the entire article linked here. So not only do they steal from other writers, get caught doing it, do it AGAIN and seemingly nothing comes from it, but they also deny the possibility of any actual good articles to be published on their site. I guess it's for the best. If my article had gone through, people would've had to THINK instead of look at silly pitches of Dr. Who drinking 8 different kinds of soda in the "8 different kinds of product placement featured in Dr. Who" article. Am I bitter? Certainly, a little. What I am more however is shocked that this-this reputable site that has quotes on DVD boxes for god sakes-is allowed to get away with this time and time again! That's what I am. Not bitter. Disappointed. Disappointed in the internet, in journalism and overall the world right now. Shit like this makes me not want to write. This is SICKENING.
And what's worse is they'll keep getting away with it.
Who says cheaters never prosper.
And what's worse is they'll keep getting away with it.
Who says cheaters never prosper.
RSS Feed