Recently, a news story surfaced that claimed Caylee Anthony’s mother had “inked a multi-media deal, 6 figure cash advance.” Several local media outlets in Orlando, and perhaps elsewhere in the country, credited the Los Angeles Examiner with the shocking revelation. There’s a serious flaw with that claim because there is no such publication as the Los Angeles Examiner. The Los Angeles Examiner was founded in 1903 by William Randolph Hearst. In 1962, it merged with the Los Angeles Herald-Express and became the Los Angeles Herald Examiner. On November 2, 1989, it published its last edition. While that paper folded, the San Francisco Examiner, also once owned by Hearst, is still in business, and at one time, the two papers complemented each other.
Today, a new breed of “newspapers” have entered the fray of Internet-based media outlets. While these new kids on the block print no paper editions, they are still loosely considered newspapers to some extent. One of them is Examiner.com, and it has absolutely nothing to do with any real newspaper, in print and online form, with Examiner in its name. The Washington Examiner and the San Francisco Examiner are two examples of print and online versions and there is a lot of confusion between Examiner.com and those two legitimate Examiner newspapers. To clarify the difference, let’s clear up any confusion. Examiner.com is a division of the Clarity Media Group, which is wholly owned by The Anschutz Company. Clarity Media Group is the parent company of the Washington and San Francisco newspapers. However, neither are affiliated with Examiner.com. The CEO of Examiner.com, Rick Blair, asserted that, “We offer stories about the best bike trips in the city and where to go on the weekend. We’re really not covering news.”¹
A few years ago, I thought about applying for one of the Examiner openings. I don’t recall what position it was specifically, i.e., Orlando Flirting Examiner, Orlando Drinking Games Examiner, Orlando Beauty After 50 Examiner, or whatever. (Actually, those are job offerings as of today.) Yes, whatever it was, Examiner.com seemed to promise more than it could deliver right from the start, and I walked away without applying. Their Website claims that you can:
- Earn extra income writing about what you love.
- Build your portfolio and gain valuable experience.
- Set your own hours
- Work from home
All of this sounds enticing because “IT PAYS TO BE AN EXAMINER!”
Rosetta Thurman is the author of Blogging for Branding. Her Website claims that no one writes for “The Examiner,” you simply become an Examiner. From the Blogging for Branding Website:
I see a lot of people saying that they “write for the Examiner,” which is incorrect and misleading. Examiner.com itself is clear that (my bold emphasis):
“We are powered by Examiners, the largest pool of knowledgeable and passionate contributors in the world. Examiners provide unique and original content to enhance life in your local city wherever that may be.”
You are called “an Examiner” as a title that identifies you as a writer for the site. It is simply a descriptive noun. Again, you do not write for any of the Examiner newspapers in any way. Yet it’s a misconception that the site obviously profits from.
Now that we are aware of what Examiner.com is all about, let’s take a look at the bottom line. What kind of money can an Examiner make? Examiner.com bases its compensation on page view traffic, subscriptions, session length and advertiser interest, but it does claim that contributing writers should not consider a writing gig as any sort of full-time employment, and it “tries to be very clear and transparent that this isn’t a ‘quit your day job’ opportunity.”
WritersWeekly claims to be the “highest-circulation freelance writing ezine in the world.” Examiners were issued a call by WritersWeekly to share their experiences. After the interviews, an article was published on the site (no author credit) that consolidated the math of the respondents and claimed that the estimated cost per-article looked like this:
Penny $ 2.09 per article
Barbie $ 2.30 per article
Mario $ 0.07 per article
Katrina $ 1.96 per article
Tim $ 0.88 per article
Clark $ 1.60 per article
Franny $ 0.37 per article
Kathryn $ 1.96 per article
Courtney $ 1.88 per articleAverage: $1.46 per article
Some had written hundreds of articles (usually 400-600 words each) and these were their averages. One claimed to make 10 cents per hour when all was said and done. WritersWeekly also noted that most of the pay-per-click contracts require continued contributions from writers, so if you stop writing for Examiner.com, you lose your residual income while they keep making money in perpetuity.
While many media outlets claimed that the defunct Los Angeles Examiner published the article about the Anthony book deal, it was not remotely close to the kind of newspaper the mind generally conjures up when mentioned by legitimate media sources. To make things more clear, the Orlando Sentinel and Orlando magazine have print and online editions, whereas, Examiner.com merely has an online presence. Writers for the Orlando publications are real journalists. Those with Examiner.com cannot make that claim for the most part. That takes us to the article that started this mess. Written by Donna Thomas, the LA Crime Examiner, who is she?
Her Examiner bio says she “is a published author. She is a frequent contributor on different true crime cases. She has interviewed everyone from Ted Bundy to the Unabomber.” All fine and good, right?
Garth Stapley is a journalist with the The Modesto Bee. In a January 7, 2008 article, Stapley wrote that “Scott Peterson strangled his pregnant wife in their kitchen on Christmas Eve 2002, according to a book written by a woman claiming he confessed to her 15 months ago during a prison visit.” (See: Author says Peterson confessed how and why he killed Laci)
Stapley pointed out that Thomas’s book contained a number of inconsistencies with her first, self-published, book and with statements she made to The Modesto Bee in interviews during a 19-month period. According to Stapley:
His appellate lawyers in October issued a terse statement confirming that their client had contact with Thomas, but denying that Peterson made statements attributed to him in publicity for the book.
“It is unclear what the motivation was for Ms. Thomas’ initial contact with Mr. Peterson,” East Bay attorneys Larry Gibbs and Cliff Gardner wrote to The Bee. “We are unsure of her motive in writing the book after Mr. Peterson broke off contact with Ms. Thomas, but it was not the search for truth.”
Thomas’s “I’m sorry I lied to you” book did not cite her first book, “Conduct Unbecoming - However, the Scott Peterson I Know Is Innocent”, either. She told the newspaper that she had passed a polygraph regarding Peterson’s alleged jailhouse confession, but she never produced proof, and she never produced any of the original letters she claimed she had received from Peterson. Here’s an interesting little tidbit, in my opinion, of course. According to Stapley, Thomas pledged “to donate a portion of her proceeds to ‘Haven/Stanuslaus (sic) Women’s Refuge.’ But Belinda Rolicheck, executive director of the Haven Women’s Center of Stanislaus, said recently she has never spoken with Thomas or her publisher.”
I think Stapley pretty much painted a picture of Donna Thomas, who I am not out to impugn at all. Instead, I strongly recommend that you read The Bee article written by Stapley and formulate your own opinion.
In the 1981 movie, “Body Heat”, William Hurt played a gullible third-rate attorney who was taken advantage of by a sinister woman played by Kathleen Turner. IMDB described it this way:
In the midst of a searing Florida heat wave, a woman convinces her lover, a small-town lawyer, to murder her rich husband.
The great Paul Newman starred in a 1982 movie titled, “The Verdict”. His character was a washed-out, drunk, ambulance chasing attorney who gets set-up to fall hard by a huge law firm headed by James Mason. How could a drunk has-been (or never-was) topple the Boston Diocese and the most powerful law firm in the city? (I urge you to watch both films.)
What this leads me to is quite simple and straightforward. Jose Baez and Cheney Mason sure looked inept in the courtroom. By that, I mean the prosecution was clear and concise and they produced compelling evidence that should have convicted Caylee Anthony’s alleged murderer. While many still argue over the outcome of the trial, one thing we did learn was that the defense was shrewd, cunning, and willing to lie in order to exonerate their client. I would assert that there’s a good possibility that Donna Thomas and Examiner.com were set-up by Baez or one of his goons. For the life of me, and this is the very first thing that came to mind, I would never suspect that a real whistle-blower would contact an Examiner to hand over an exclusive story like this one. That sort of “bombshell” belongs to the Riveras and Graces of the world, or any other legitimate and credible journalist. Thomas claims it was sources that told her, not one singular source. That’s suspect to me because she wrote most of the article using the plural, but in the end, she wrote that a source said Anthony doesn’t care if her book is boycotted or not; she has her 6-figure advance and she will be flush with money for a long time to come. The article finished by citing a source - singular - not sources, as saying anyone who thinks that crime doesn’t pay is sadly mistaken. Also, who could possibly live for a long time on a 6-figure salary, particularly after the IRS, her attorneys and handlers, and potential lawsuits are paid off?
With regard to a writer for Examiner.com, any writer, my guess is that an average pay-per-click amount would be somewhere around one cent. If a “How to make meatloaf” article written by an LA Home Recipes Examiner gets about 200 hits, it might make a whopping $2.00 for the hour it took to write. Imagine a story that draws the attention of millions of people worldwide; a powerful exclusive! How many hits would you guess it could garner? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? You know, it would be an easy incentive to make a fast buck, that’s for sure. Lots and lots of bucks, for that matter, but I’m not trying to infer anything seedy about the author. No doubt, the defense is capable of doing anything to keep their client in the limelight by planting a seed and later denying it, because that will keep her star from fading into oblivion, right? I really can’t say, but as far as I’m concerned, any way you look at it, it’s pure sleaze, from top to bottom. Bottom is more like it, and I’m not going to buy into any of it.
If you have any type of problem commenting on this or any other post, please let me know by sending me an e-mail. You can use the “Contact Me” form located at the bottom of the left sidebar.