The Price Of "Selling-out"

In today's class there was a heated discussion over an article published by the guardian regarding the deal Arianna Huffington made with the big fish of AOL, to sell the Huffington Post back in 2011. 

The articles central focus seemed to be about The Post's business model. By selling the company — were unpaid bloggers then exploited — not reaping benefits? There was a healthy amount of backlash from bloggers, scholars, and equally my classmates — but I personally reside in a land of neutrality. 

I wouldn't say Huffington "Sold-out. I wholeheartedly think she did what was necessary to save her company. However I do see where she could be seen as reaping such benefits. Points in class came up regarding: the possibility that if bloggers were so upset, why didn't more of them leave?, or she's the reason journalists today have such small salaries, if any. However one point we touched on, but didn't spend much time exploring, is Huffington's personal advocacy when it comes to net neutrality. 

The big fish of AOL was swallowed by the whale Verizon in 2015. A company that not only essentially endorses the exact opposite net neutrality, but is known for being the main contributor. For Huffington it's like her arch nemesis who stands for everything she's against just took away her baby and went to raise it under their wing. Excuse me, its not like that happened. That's exactly what happened. 

When looking deeper into Huffington's involvement with net neutrality, it's amazing to see how dedicated she is to the concept. The Post has an entire section dedicated to articles surrounding net neutrality. Which is appropriately titled HuffPost Net Neutrality, With articles like, "12 Top Religious Leaders On Why We Need An Open Internet" and "Think The Net Neutrality Fight Is Over? Think Again." it's abundantly clear which side of the net neutrality fight The Post is on. I'm simply surprised that through test last couple months Verizon hasn't gotten rid of the page as a whole, but naturally instead they have their own page in opposition.   

It's also interesting to note that the only outlets to shed light on their opposing ideals were independents. When the news broke of Verizon taking over AOL the only perspective really shown was about how great this is for the progression of mobile video services. There was an awesome article in The Nation summing up exactly what I was thinking. They ask, "what this means for the content—you know, the journalism." Following that statment are a number of points, scholarly quotes, and embedded tweets, however the final statment is most striking. 

"Employees is a key word. When AOL bought the Huffington Post for $315 million, Arianna Huffington didn’t pass a cent onto the thousands of freelance writers who blog for the site for free—as in unpaid, gratis, pro bono. Getting “exposure” was its own paycheck. And regardless of how any Verizon windfall is spent, it’s as unlikely that she’ll start paying bloggers as it is that the politically committed telecom will start giving its journalists 100 percent, total, no-holds-barred editorial freedom. That’s a word for nothing left to lose." 

It's almost like they're saying Huffington is now getting a taste of her own medicine. Did she deserve it? Maybe that's the price she had to pay.