Boldly Go Solo

A debate rages in the travel writer community about whether to take freebies when traveling or not. The writer of this Huffington Post blog post on travel writing says she takes them and doesn't have a problem with it.

This is somewhat off topic for boldlygosolo but I'm interested to hear what you think.

As the writer says, the freebie topic is controversial in journalism circles. Hard-core news journalists don't take subsidized travel. No free food or lodging. No airfare. Major metropolitan newspapers ask freelancers to sign contracts that they haven't taken subsidized travel. (which often leads to a "don't ask, don't tell" policy by writers and editors who don't routinely ask if a trip was subsidized.)

And yet, newspapers pay freelancers mere hundreds of dollars for a story. If that. Not close to covering the costs of a trip, let alone allowing a writer to earn any money. So many, many travel writers go on press trips (read: free) or FAM trips (read: free).

The writer at the Huffington Post (which pays zilch for travel stories) says, "If we all had to pay our own ways, travel writing would be reserved for the rich, resulting in a limited point of view."

Yes and no. I've based most of my travel writing on vacations I've taken, that I would have paid for in any case. Many travel writers subsidize their writing careers by doing other writing that pays well. Or at least better than travel writing does.

But many writers still take free trips to go places they weren't heading to on their own.

And, as the writer points out, some trips are ridiculously expensive. Cruises for $10,000. Hotel rooms for $700.

If you're reading about those I'm going to guess it's highly likely the
writer was subsidized. Whether they write that they were or not. Is
that bad? Wrong? Do you want to read about those luxury vacations? Do
you care if someone took something for free to get the access to write
about them? Is it important they state that?

I have taken two free trips in my lifetime, neither of which I wrote about for a newspaper that forbids it. Only for this blog. I seldom take press trips, for a variety of reasons, but that also limits what I'm able to write about. If I can't afford to go, it doesn't become a travel story.

Debate this: Do theater reviewers pay for their tickets or take them for free? Do you care?

Car reviewers are given cars to test drive and I'm pretty sure they don't pay for that privilege. Do they then write a more positive piece because the car company did them a favor?

The travel writer question remains. Should writers lose money to write travel stories? Are travel writers necessarily biased if they take free trips? Do you think they wouldn't write about the negatives if their trip was paid for?

Actually, I believe bad trips often are just dropped as stories. Who wants to read an entire story about where not to go? What do you put in the story's sidebar. "Don't eat at this restaurant?" That's why travel stories mostly are upbeat. They're supported by advertising and advertisers aren't particularly encouraged by negative stories.

So, do you distrust stories based on subsidized travel? (The thing is, you read plenty of those stories, trust me. You just don't know it most of the time.)

Tell me.

Photo: Ellen Perlman. Moonrise, Maui.