Words: Isaac Quirke (he/him)
If you go to gal-dem’s website, your browser will warn you that The Connection Is Not Private, and that “gal-dem.com” may try to steal your personal or financial information. The publication, established and operated by a team entirely made up of women and non-binary people-of-colour, ran from 2018, before folding in 2023 due to financial hardship. Online teen-girl magazine Rookie ran for 7 years, until shuttering for the same reason. Another victim: vice.com. Age: 11 years. Cause of Death: Bankruptcy. A Celebration of Life: The Pool 2015-2019, which passed due to the re-routing of advertising budgets from digital magazines to influencers.
It’s a grim outlook for GUM contributors looking to turn their hobby into a career. For all the usual reasons: economic decline, slashed advertising budgets, pandemic shockwaves. The publications which bring truth to light, platform the silenced, and speak to our hearts are disappearing. It’s even more depressing when considering what all these publications have in common. Gal-dem’s aforementioned centering of femme, queer, POC diaspora. Rookie’s manifesto as the non-boyfriend-focused magazine for teenage girls. Vice’s brand built on reporting the oft-overlooked. The Pool: female-focused, well-paying. It’s fairly obvious that the journalism disrupting an industry presided over by those with hidden agendas and fat wallets is being pushed aside.
And even worse still: when publications die, sometimes the work dies with them. I am terrified of entering the gal-dem website for fear of extortion (though I’m a student, so there isn’t much to steal). The BBC states that 25% of web pages posted between 2013 and 2023 are lost, and a Columbia Journalism Review research report revealed that 19 of the 21 participating publications had neither formal nor ad-hoc policies for content preservation. Digital-only publications were even less aware of archiving processes, naively believing that third-party cloud-based backups were adequate. Bizarrely, this lack of preservation was chalked up to a focus on “what’s happening now”, as if the “breaking” nature of breaking news renders it disposable. The writing’s on the wall: not only was The Pool’s entire archive nuked on closure, but in a twist of the knife, staff writers were not paid for their last month’s work, having to resort to crowd-funding for compensation.
Is it actually any better if struggling publications are saved by a guardian angel (investor)? Increasing numbers of formerly independent magazines are now owned by media conglomerates, venture capitalists and, inexplicably, Karlie Kloss (even Kaia Gerber has a part-stake in W Magazine). The model and mogul’s recent purchase of i-D was met with controversy, following layoffs of editorial staff, and worries about the magazine’s future direction. These worries are not unfounded: when hands change to those presumably focused on takings, which is often beholden to decisions not aligned with creativity or integrity, it is a concern whether a publication’s identity can be maintained. It also raises questions about whether magazines distributing essential writing should be purchased by celebrities looking to boost social cachet. But if the priority is patronage – powerful people scooping up publications they are personally invested in with a reduced concern for turning a profit – then there is a possibility that important magazines could be left to truck along without worrying about which skincare sponsorship will keep them afloat.
It should come as a relief to contributors that GUM has a comprehensive archive. After emailing the editorial team, cynically expecting a reply littered with apologies, I was sent a detailed account of all the measures taken to preserve our writing. 2 copies of every physical edition are kept, 1 for the British Library, and 1 for the University’s archive. Editions from as far back as the late 19th century are available to access by appointment. There is a digital archive of website content, though this reveals a slight bias towards print. For those hoping to take journalism seriously, or even just having something to show the grandkids, these are invaluable procedures. But if every article published outside of academia is susceptible to the forces of foreclosure, usurpation, and instability, what is the point? Are we merely rehearsing for the void, acclimatising to archiving practices not mirrored by professional publications, only to be met later with disappointment?
It’s almost enough to put you off writing altogether! As someone who is journalism-curious, it’s disheartening to know that smaller publications, more likely to give a byline to a budding writer, are being backspaced out of the industry. Not only that, but inadequate archiving practices could cause work to be backspaced entirely out of existence. More attention needs to be given to independent publications while they are still operating, and more effort is required to ensure that their writing lives on beyond closure. I’m grateful now more than ever for GUM, which stands to platform and preserve student voices. If only the journalism industry would follow suit.
Word count: 800
Sources:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jan/31/online-womens-magazine-the-pool-enters-administration
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47089836
https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/the-dire-state-of-news-archiving-in-the-digital-age.php
https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20240912-the-archivists-battling-to-save-the-internet
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/nov/19/karlie-kloss-buy-id-magazine
https://www.rookiemag.com/2018/11/editors-letter-86
