link--this

It's just that the way that phrase I quoted from you sounded, that it seemed like he was trying to justify why he was doing it. If he's just asking for the pure heck of it, there really shouldn't be any need to justify anything. But at some point I have to kind of wonder if he planned to do a six week cycle for this thing all along, and if so, it's at the very least impolite to not mention that at the outset. I'm sure many of the donors wouldn't have given, or at least, given as much as they did, had they known this was going to become a recurring feature.

Like I said, it doesn't bother me that he's doing it, I consider myself fairly "liberal" as well, but in life, you gotta get what you can when you can, from anyone willing to give it to you, and I won't begrudge anyone from doing just that. If I could find the right niche to inspire folks to fork out funds, I'd cancel my job interview for tomorrow morning and sleep in, but I just don't agree with the line of thinking that "Well, I used to have this paid job, but I've been doing this fun thing on the side, and the fun thing is more appealing than the paid thing, so I deserve to be paid for the fun thing I'd been doing for free previously." But if his thought process is "Hey, I'm going to ask for cash to see who will pay me" or even "Let's see how many suckers out there are willing to give me money because I asked," that's fine...it's up to the possessor of the money to decide if it's a reasonable thing to do, for them

and I'm still accepting grants and other non-repayable loans :)

¤ ¤ credit: Matt | 06.10.03 at 11:04 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

The question I ask is that if he's such a great writer/journalist, why IS he spending so much time writing for a free blog and not for money elsewhere?

I don't like the whole way he makes it a "donation" and that he needs our "help" to continue. Call it like it is. It's a business. You subscribe for certain features. Don't brag about your income. Even in the real world, people don't walk around going "I make x dollars a year" without coming across as being a tosser.

At least Chris P provides a service and charges for it. You know what you're getting, and you know it's his business. He's not telling you that he can't go on without donations. He's selling a product. If Andrew Sullivan packaged himself as a business and not a charity case, all this might be looked upon differently.

I'll be trying to find money to give to blogrolling and MT before I pay for something like that.

Just my opinion of course.

¤ ¤ credit: Jessica Parker | 06.11.03 at 08:25 AM | link--this ¤ ¤

I don't have a problem with Sully beggin. Heck, isn't his site a Holy Grail of sorts on the Internet. Mainstream, successful journalist gets out from under the thumb of corporate media, responsive and accountable to his readers and subscribers?

As a fundraising matter, I can say that

1) The most important gift from a donor is the second, not the first. It establishes a pattern of giving much more likely to sustain itself.

2) If you're going to ask for money, the single most likely group to give it to you is the universe of folks that just *gave* to you.

He's not making it a paysite, and I think I remember a ways back he was paying a staff assistant as well.

We're all free to blog, and free to blog for free. If a few dedicated bloggers out there can make their site their full-time gig - I say more power to 'em. It makes the blog world more effective.

That said, as somone who gave the guy $50 about two years ago - once you see such serious "budget increases" you should also demand a corresponding increase in quality or output.

I don't know that we've seen it.

¤ ¤ credit: Mike Krempasky | 06.14.03 at 02:11 AM | link--this ¤ ¤