by Tabitha M. Powledge
[With extravagant thanks to Mary Knudson, who invented and creatively produced The Freelance Corner under a variety of titles since SW Winter 1992-93, SW welcomes its new proprietor, known to everyone as Tammy. Freelances out of Hollywood, MD; e-mail: tam@nasw.org--HJL]
So I prepared to take on this column by checking out whether the folklore about the origin of the term freelance is true. The answer is yes; various dictionaries confirm what Karla Harby told us in her bright piece on that subject, which appeared here in the Spring 1993 issue of ScienceWriters. A free lance was indeed the medieval version of the mercenary soldier, the hired gun--free of loyalty to any single lord and, even more important, free to sell his skills to the highest bidder.
A useful reminder that we are all heirs to an ancient entrepreneurial capitalist tradition. Freelancing does NOT mean writing for free, despite any experience you may have had to the contrary. Yes, some are born freelances, some achieve freelancing, and some have freelancing thrust upon them. But all of us run what is, first of all, a business. Which is a way of saying this column will be mostly about stuff relevant to the menace of that final line on Schedule C.
In my secret heart, though, my favorite definition of freelance comes from Webster's Third: "one who acts on his own responsibility without regard to party lines or deference to authority." Yes, an unusual measure of independence really is a compensation--not always adequate, I'll concede--for the insecurities and other burdens of the freelance life. And it helps a little to recall the Romance of Freelancing while jousting with daily realities like figuring out how to get to a crucial meeting on the cheap when the publisher won't pay travel.
The NASW Freelance Committee is putting together a continuing survey of freelances to gather information on current publishing practices, especially contract matters such as electronic rights and indemnification clauses, as well as rates, regularity of payment, and editing experiences. The plan is to publish summaries of this information from time to time in a format similar to the "Contracts Watch" published by the American Society of Journalists and Authors. The summaries will be distributed by e-mail but also appear in ScienceWriters. Joel Shurkin, who chairs the committee, would like your advice and suggestions, especially about which items should be included in the survey. Send them to joel@nasw.org
I follow in the metaphorically large footsteps of Mary Knudson, who wrote the freelance column for several years and has been generous to me with her advice and encouragement. Mary concluded her stellar tenure with last issue's extensive look at selling material to "new media"--can anyone volunteer a better term?--co-authored with Carol Cruzan Morton. From their lips to God's ear. But in the meantime, old media, especially print, will remain the chief market for most of us.
For specific tips on how to sell stories to four excellent print markets for science writing, plus a hearty dose of freelancing reality, it would be hard to beat the "Meet the Editors" NASW workshop in Seattle in February. Organized by Stephen Hart, this workshop couldn't have been more on target, and I hope he will bravely sign on forever to make it an annual feature. (The indefatigable Steve has also posted a very useful set of links to science-related periodicals on his home page, which I commend to your attention. http://nasw.org/users/hart/)
Keep in mind that these editors aren't usually interested in proposals based on the same press releases we all get; they get them too.
The long-lived British-based weekly New Scientist, circulation about 120,000, emphasizes style and a sense of fun, said news editor Peter Aldhous, and that's an accurate description. Peter buys news stories (usually 500 words or less) and news briefs (usually 150 words or less) for a soon-to-be-redesigned front end. His colleague Jeremy Webb, the features editor, is looking for pieces of 2000-3000 words. They pay US freelances $1.00 per word ($75-$100 for briefs) for all rights, including electronic. They particularly want material on the physical sciences, especially chemistry, and on technology and math. Seek your ideas in specialist journals and at meetings. Timeliness is essential, and when they want it, they want it fast. If you can't find the print version of New Scientist, http://www.newscientist.com will give you a sense of the magazine and is a lively and appealing site to check out even if you're not interested in writing for it. Query by phone or e-mail (News: +44 171 261 6179, Peter_Aldhous@ipc.co.uk) (Features: +44 171 261 6307, Jeremy_Webb@ipc.co.uk).
Josh Fischman, its editor, wants everybody to understand that Earth is NOT a magazine about rocks. "We write about how the Rockies were born and how the dinosaurs died," he says. The 5-year-old bimonthly, circulation 100,000 and climbing, is a general-audience popular science magazine written mostly by freelances, and its editors are looking actively for new writers. They buy news items of 200-400 words, short features of about 900 words, and feature stories up to 3000 words in length. Topics for features can range from natural history ("not fuzzy animals, but SYSTEMS of fuzzy animals") to getting inside the heads of researchers to discover how they solve puzzles; the focus tends to be on subjects like earthquakes and volcanism, paleontology and archaeology, the science underlying environmental issues, and yes, geology. Payment of $0.50-$1.00 per word includes first North American serial rights; electronic rights are negotiable. Find the magazine at bookstore newsstands, or take a look at http://www.earthmag.com. Written queries only to Earth Magazine, 21027 Crossroads Circle, PO Box 1612, Waukesha, WI 53187.
According to its editor, Bonnie Gordon, Astronomy is changing from content written mostly by astronomers to material from actual writers and is therefore in a state of evolution. She says she is seeking to improve readability in an effort to encourage a younger audience and so will run profiles and talk about researchers. Circulation is presently about 170,000, and a redesign is scheduled for July. She plans to pay $0.50-$1.00 per word. This magazine is also at bookstore newsstands, but see also http://www.astronomy.com. Phone: 414-798-6602, e-mail: bgordon@astronomy.com.
Popular Science reports paid circulation of 1.6 million, 85% men. According to Dawn Stover, its science editor, the magazine is moving toward a greater emphasis on basic science, including the life sciences. It pays well, typically $1.00 per word for first North American serial rights to features of 2000-2500 words, although a good way to start is with shorter news items in the front of the book. The editors are looking especially for articles on engineering, new materials, basic science, physics, and math; they already have a lot of medical material, she said. In April they began publishing Verge, a new magazine with a focus on technology and gadgets, aimed at men 21-35. She wants written queries only and prefers e-mail (dstover@aol.com or stover@popsci.com). Don't expect to hear right away, she warned. Snailmail (1208 Snowden Rd., White Salmon, WA 98672) or FAX (509-493-3650) is also okay.
Technology Review is MIT's national magazine and is aimed at a sophisticated lay audience; it has 100,000 subscribers, according to senior editor Laura van Dam. It is looking for clear, full descriptions and an emphasis on the humanness of science and technology, especially its social and political ramifications. It takes both short pieces and features, often focusing on interesting people. It also publishes photoessays and will consider a book excerpt or another version of a piece you've already done for a different audience. Payment starts at $450 for a short and $1200 for a feature and goes up. I can personally attest to its terrific contract, the best I've seen. Or signed. http://web.mit.edu/techreview/. Written queries only, to lvandam@mit.edu, or Bldg. W59-203, Cambridge, MA 02139, or FAX 617-258-8778.
This section will be a regular feature of the column, highlighting items that can save freelance science writers our two most precious resources: money and time. Most will doubtless be related in some way to computing, and I expect to be giving a lot of attention to web sites, at least at the outset.
Until a couple years ago, having the very latest computer equipment didn't mean much to most of us who ply the word-processing trade. But then came easy, cheap access to the Internet. Now e-mail is so essential that even editors and publishers finally have it. And then there's the World Wide Web, which is sometimes a fine research tool.
These planetary electronic links can be splendid, visionary, magical, philosophically satisfying, and occasionally even beautiful. But they are also damned annoying. Web sites are designed by nerds for nerds. (Or is it geeks? Never can remember.....) Nerdgeeks live in an alternate universe, one furnished with MMMDCCCLXXXVIII chips, color scanners of infinite dspi, 1024-inch monitors, and direct connections to the Internet, or possibly even the moons of Jupiter. Their web sites can dazzle the eye, right enough. But only if you use their equipment will the dazzle be quick.
We live, most of us, in a lesser universe. Our CPUs date from yesterday and sometimes yesteryear, and our dial-up connections to the 'Net can be erratic and are almost always slow. Money for upgrades comes out of our gross and therefore does so infrequently. And, more important, nobody underwrites our learning curves. The hours we spend wrestling new systems to the ground are hours we are not spending researching or writing or talking to editors. Not to mention our children.
Which is why you're not going to find much emphasis on the whiz-bangness
of sites here. Evaluations will be based on their utility for the real world
of freelance science and medical writers, mostly with two criteria in mind:
Will this site help us do the kind of research we do? and Is it easy to
use? Some sites, for example, have text-only or low-graphics versions that
can speed your searching. All sites will also be free unless otherwise noted.
Please tell me about sites you've loved--or loathed--and agree or disagree
with my evaluations (tam@nasw.org). I
write mostly about the life sciences, but will try hard to give equal opportunity
to sites of interest to freelances who specialize in other fields; just
tell me about them. I'll begin, though, with four web sites we should all
bookmark no matter what we write about.
AAAS's idea is to create one-stop shopping at its EurekAlert web site, which has collected much to interest science writers besides modified access to Science. And we are beholden to them too because they've provided house room to the NASW web site itself.
But EurekAlert has led to grumbling too, because it has limited entry into one part of the site: Bench Notes, which contains embargoed press releases from journals and institutions. The admissions procedure for Bench Notes is cumbersome and can take a long time. Freelances must request access "in writing, on your employer's letterhead with your supervisor's signature." Should a letter from your "employer" strike you as a loony requirement for a freelance because it's impossible by definition, you can also fax three recent bylined clips to 202-789-0455.
I gather from gossip that my experience has not been atypical. The process took several months, but perhaps your canonization will be swifter because they won't lose your clips as they did mine. And if I don't lose my yellow sticky containing the klunkiest password since the tin-can-and-string days when "online" meant "BBS", I am now allowed to see Bench Notes. Bench Notes includes a link to the invaluable AAAS handbook of contact information, Science Sources, a really good reason to seek entry. There are also a handful of embargoed journals in Bench Notes, and I was quickly granted access to everything except Science itself. Those of us who complained about this peculiar exclusion were advised to nag. We did, and I'm delighted to report that, as usual, nagging works.
Full text of most upcoming Science articles is available in Bench Notes as .PDF files. This has certain disadvantages. You'll need fairly up-to-date hardware to download them and a copy of Adobe Acrobat to read and print them. They are large graphics files, so downloading and printing can take a while. The compensation is very good print quality, complete with illustrations. Instructions for downloading Acrobat (it's free) are in Bench Notes, or go to Adobe's site: http://www.adobe.com/acrobat/. If, for reasons of time or technology, .PDF files don't appeal to you, you can request a fax copy instead. You must check Bench Notes every week, however. Past press packets are archived at the site back to the spring of 1996, but the full-text articles are available only during the week of posting.
Apply for admission to Bench Notes by filling in the form at the site itself. If you have trouble, the Bench Notes czarina is Diane Dondershine, ddonders@aaas.org, 202-326-6421, and I have found her swift and obliging. Please share reports on how you fared in being admitted to the Inner Sanctum. Access to this information is a competitive issue for all of us, and likely to become more so if EurekAlert becomes the dominant science site that AAAS is aiming for.
The non-Bench Notes sections of EurekAlert are worth exploring too, of course. There are searchable press release archives, although the files are huge, so searching is slow. Among the other goodies are links to the sites of several science writers' organizations, including of course this one. There are also links to many journals, consumer publications, and broadcast outlets that cover science and medicine. One of them is, naturally, Science. But you get abstracts only--unless you subscribe to the print version and pay an additional fee for online access. Registration is required for abstracts, but it's free, and there is a low-graphics version.
The web site for the National Academy of Sciences is concerned with its own activities exclusively, but since those activities are widespread, far-ranging, and authoritative, that's not much of a limitation. Here you will find abstracts and summaries and sometimes complete papers from a huge number of reports on almost every conceivable subject relating to science and technology, from space science to biodiversity, from telemedicine to Agent Orange, from lactation to electromagnetic fields to animal research to.....well, you get the picture. All are generated by components of the NAS, which include the National Research Council, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Academy of Engineering.
Here too are recent issues of the major journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, contents pages and selected articles from the policy quarterly Issues in Science and Technology, the periodical News Report, abstracts of colloquia, links to the NAS Press Bookstore, and more. For example, the Institute of Medicine's page links to several sources of medical information and some standard reference works, and the Office of News and Public Information has a page. There is also a directory of members of the various Academy components and committees. This includes many of the stars of science and medicine, but its utility is limited for us because it contains almost no contact information.
Until the end of this year, full text of all PNAS articles back to November 1996 is free. PNAS Online can be reached through the NAS address above, but also directly at http://www.pnas.org.
This paradise--the New York Times (or most of it anyway) for free--can't possibly last, so enjoy it while you can. You must register, but the process is quick and hassle-free. Unlike most web sites, this one is easy to navigate and intelligently organized around the assumption that those who visit it actually read. You can select a text-only path that saves a lot of time without depriving you of much; if you want to see a graphic that accompanies a particular piece, you can always click it open. My sole complaint about this site is that the headlines, mostly taken straight from the paper, are often not very informative because they lack additional clues to topic such as breakout quotes and subheads.
Clicking on the "Science" heading will get you the entire section on Tuesdays, the medical stuff on Wednesdays, and the occasional pieces that run on other days. As far as I can determine, this heading includes everything science-related from the print version--even, for example, business section pieces. The bad news is that if you want to browse you must check it daily, or at least on Tuesdays, because articles are rarely left up beyond publication day. The site has a search feature that permits looking back for a few months. But you can't just browse these archives; you must use specific search terms such as "cloning" or "Kolata."
Computer articles are gathered under a separate heading called "Cybertimes." It contains a lot of web-only material, including some columns that strain mightily, if unsuccessfully, for hipness, but also much of the print version. I find something useful a couple of times a week. Cybertimes material remains in the archives for a while, so you don't have to check it daily.
Much of the rest of the analog Times is also included in this terrific package--International, National, Business, Sports, Arts & Leisure, Style, even the Week in Review. No Magazine, but for fun there's the crossword and movie reviews for the past couple of years. And--possibly the site's greatest treasure--the Book Review, with full text of bookchat and 50,000 reviews back to (I can hardly believe it) 1980.
I rarely visit the Washington Post's web site because I read
the print version daily. If you don't, you are missing out on the work of
a large and superb staff of science and medical writers, second to none
in our business. Unfortunately, I can't promise that finding the digital
versions of their pieces is easy.
The site affords many pleasures, but its classification system is seriously
frustrating. Science and medical articles are not organized under one heading
as they are at the Times's site, but rather according to the separate
Post fiefdoms in which they appear. To browse successfully, you have to
know that science and medical stories can run in the main news section any
day of the week, but that always on Mondays science briefs appear on p.2
and a major feature on p.3, that there's a weekly "Health"
tabloid on Tuesdays with several medical pieces, and that the monthly broadsheet
called "Horizon" is mostly science.
The most efficient way to get around this confusing site seems to be from the so-called site index, which is not really an index, but actually a contents page. It's also very long, so be prepared to scroll and scroll and scroll before you'll have a sense of where to search for what you want.
The site has some canned topics already collected; one of them is "Science" but it's close to useless. When I fetched that topic recently it contained only three articles, and of the three, one was about fast food and the other was the news that Monitor Radio was up for sale. I was truly mystified until I realized that studies on the nutritional content of fast food had been done by the Center for SCIENCE and the Public Interest, and that Monitor Radio was a project of the Christian SCIENCE Monitor. Pfui on Deep Blue; I've never encountered a better argument against sending a computer to do the work of a human being.
If I didn't find it so irritating to locate the science news, I would have many nice things to say about this site. It keeps material posted for a long time--science and medicine for some months and movie reviews back at least to 1990. It has a search feature too, although searching appears to cover just the previous two weeks of papers. For the many of us who live and work near the capital, the site is very strong on DC-area happenings, entertainment, and dining. The excellent Book Review is there and so is the Sunday Magazine. Post archives back to 1986 are promised soon, although I doubt they will be free.
In the paper paper, useful computer stuff also appears all over the place: the Monday Business tabloid, the Thursday Style section, the Weekend Fast Forward section, among others. But, in contrast to the material on science and medicine, the web site has the wit to gather all the computer articles together under the heading "Technology Post," and salt it with some additional web-only material, making it easy to find. So these articles are worth checking out.
So are the science and medical articles, which is why it's close to a tragedy that they are so hard to get to. As presently organized, the site seems almost to be trying to keep the Post's very talented corps of science and medical writers under wraps. Perhaps some NASW member Post staffers will see this and Steps Will Be Taken?
Tabitha M. Powledge (tam@nasw.org) is the author of Your Brain: How You Got It and How It Works (Scribner's 1995).