As you may have seen last month (or maybe not, because not everyone is so meta as to read the news on the news), the New York Times is “reimagining” its travel section under the leadership of new Travel editor Amy Virshup.
The Times will be focusing less on first person travelogues, using more local writers, and taking the reader’s voice into consideration. On the surface this all sounds fine, but the move sparked fierce debate on Twitter, mainly because of a NYT policy that does not allow writers to accept any complimentary trips or products for three years before writing for the paper. Freelance writers argue that rates are not high enough to make up for this trade off, especially when they’re not paid for months after submitting a story. To make ends meet, freelance travel writers churn out multiple stories per month for numerous publications, many of which do accept coverage from a press trip. The New York Times policy effectively stops writers from working for other publications as well, because without taking press trips they cannot afford to travel on freelance rates (including ours, which we’re working on). It is extremely difficult to get an article accepted at the New York Times, and no one could survive on writing a one-off story for the paper here and there.
There are parts of the Times’s new thinking that I agree with. More content from local writers is a good thing. That’s a huge part of why I started Curiosity Magazine. Many stories benefit from context and perspective gained over time. One concern is that the local writers the Times hires will be mostly Americans based abroad, negating any diversity they hoped to achieve. It can be difficult to find writers around the world. We’ve struggled with it here. Language skills sometimes present a barrier, and often we simply don’t receive pitches from local writers for whatever reason–writers don’t see our calls for pitches, don’t have access to resources that tell them how to pitch, don’t have clips from major publications (because of lack of connections or otherwise), and on and on. Sidenote: pitch me!
Other areas of the announcement I disagree with. Virshup says, “in general I want to take the word “I” out of our coverage.” This is disappointing. Some of the best travel writing is about discovery. The travel stories that have moved me most are not those telling me what to see or do or eat, but those of exploration, usually told in the first person. These are also the rare cases where a local writer isn’t the best choice. An outsider can highlight something about a place locals take for granted; they provide a new perspective. It is called travel writing, after all. At Curiosity, we try to include a mix of both. For stories about politics, culture, food, and history, we think locals know best. (As a travel writer who has written about places where I am not a local, I realize I am writing myself out of a job here, but I think it’s the direction we should be moving). For personal essays, we want writers who have traveled and had unique experiences. We like stories of transformation and revelation, those that spark the reader’s imagination and make them want to go.
The main issue here though, is diversity. The travel writing community is largely white and largely privileged. Virshup tried to say this wasn’t true at the New York Times, tweeting, “I think that would surprise the trans writer who we just published. Or the young black woman who wrote about racism abroad. Or the Asian-American woman who just covered Yosemite after the Ferguson fire.”
The tokenism coming from one of the most respected newspapers in the world was not a good look. “Your argument of I know a _____ person rings pretty hollow,” one writer responded.
So, how do you get diversity in travel writing? It’s a low paid profession with many barriers for entry. Part of the way writers subsidize it is by accepting things like press trips, where they’re hosted by a city or a brand. I completely understand the fear that this creates biased coverage, and I fully support the Times in not accepting any stories on their platform that have come as the result of a press trip. Travel is only a small section and the publication’s main role is to provide accurate, unbiased news on major national and world issues. It makes sense to have a policy banning coverage that has been influenced in any way, even in the Travel section.
What doesn’t make sense though, is banning writers from taking these trips at all, even for other publications. If you take a press trip to Bora Bora, but are pitching the Times a story on Montana, how does that Bora Bora trip influence you? It doesn’t, and meanwhile by taking it the writer was probably able to write a few other stories and pay her rent. But, no matter how interesting the Montana story, it cannot technically be accepted under the New York Times policy. Say a local writer in India wants to write a story for the Times about her home city, but travels to Sri Lanka on a press trip for a different publication. She is now banned from writing for the Times for three years, even though she is an expert on the place she lives and just the kind of voice the Times is supposedly looking for.
If Virshup wants diversity, the policy seems hypocritical, especially because it’s not always followed. Many writers I know have been on press trips with others who write for the New York Times. The policy seems to be applied here and there, editor to editor. I wrote a story for the New York Times Travel Tips section recently. I filled out a form listing all of the trips I’ve taken over the last three years, and it didn’t seem to be an issue. Virshup was adamant that this was not the case, that no one writes for the Times who has taken a free trip. She went so far as to ask writers to call out their peers. “Tell me their names,” she wrote on Twitter. Then later, “I am waiting for these supposed names.” The freelance travel writing community is small, and it’s just that–a community. Asking writers to rat out their colleagues and friends is unacceptable and naive. Virshup has always worked on staff and seems ignorant to the struggles of freelancers who supply much of her section’s stories.
I don’t think that press trips are the most ideal way to learn about a place–there is usually little time to explore on your own–and again I see why the Times does not want to accept stories from them. But what Virshup and other editors fail to understand is that writers care about their reputations, too. Serious travel writers won’t write glowing words about a terrible experience. Editors should work to build a network of freelancers they can trust, so that even if they take free trips, the editor can trust their words are honest opinions.
I’ve received a few pitches here at Curiosity that are obviously focused on promoting a destination or hotel. I haven’t accepted them. On the other hand, I’ve been on press trips that were incredibly informative. I recently visited Franciacorta (the Italian territory) on behalf of its tourism board. I learned how Franciacorta (the sparkling wine) is made–something I would not have known otherwise, how the region evolved, about ancient fish preservation methods, and about the area’s history (did you know Brescia has some of the best preserved Roman ruins in Italy because it was the only town in Lombard to rally for the cause of Italian Unity? Me either). We stayed at a nice hotel and visited numerous wineries and restaurants. When I write about it, I will include what I enjoyed and leave out what I did not. It’s a rare case that something on a press trip is so awful I feel the need to warn readers against it, but if something truly terrible happened I would. The articles will give readers insight into a place, its history, and a type of wine they’ve maybe never heard of. I do not feel obligated to include everywhere I drank a free glass of wine, nor every restaurant where I dined. This is the case with most press trips. Often, they really do help writers gain the information and expertise needed to serve readers. Often, they really do help writers serve travelers looking for inspiration.
This is the case on a local level too. Writers based in cities are invited to hotel and restaurant openings and events hosted by the local tourism board. Sometimes, they learn about something new happening in their cities that readers would be genuinely interested in. Without this access, writers would never be able to afford to write about travel. Those who can afford it without press discounts or freebies aren’t writing about it for the public.
As writer Chelsea Davis said in a recent article, “If you can afford the kinds of trips we can go on and can have these types of experiences, you’re not going to go home and write about it. You’re going to jump on your private plane and go somewhere new. If you’re paying for this on your own dime, writing is not what you do”
More representation is needed in travel writing. By banning writers from taking trips even for other publications, the New York Times is not going to get it. As editors, we need to address the lack of representation in our publications. We need to hire more local writers, or commission first person stories from writers of all backgrounds. Writers should be helping each other, too–sharing editor email addresses, proofing each other’s pitches, acting as mentors for those without the education, resources, or connections needed to excel in this field. Travel and food writing is never just about travel or food. It shapes how we see the world. If we want the bigger picture, we need to diversify the voices telling stories and understand the barriers in place and steps people need to take to make a journalism career feasible.
With that said, let’s get back to regular programming. This month at Curiosity Magazine I’m excited to bring you stories about religious traditions, from Jewish food on the U.S.–Mexico border to politics in Bethlehem, from Muharram in Pakistan to the Dongzhi festival in Taiwan.
Happy holidays if you’re celebrating, and thank you for your support as we end 2018. If you’ve enjoyed our first few months, please consider helping fund future stories through a donation or purchase from our shop. The best way to increase representation is to pay writers fairly, and raising our freelance rates is something I really hope we can do in 2019.
To stay up to date on our stories and other news, subscribe to our biweekly newsletter. And as always, remember to stay curious.
– Rebecca
