Fairfax Media, and in particular its broadsheets The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, has acquired a reputation among freelance journalists for meanness and inconsistency — over and above the normal nonsense prevalent in the industry.

The survey of freelancers on my blog a couple of months ago revealed that many contributors to Fairfax were paid nothing, while “name” authors got up to $1 a word. Freelancers reported being told by Fairfax editors that they had no budget to pay contributors.

Then there is the matter of the standard Fairfax contributors’ contract, which the company is seeking to impose. It contains an outrageous provision that those who contribute more than a small number of pieces to Fairfax in a six-month period are prohibited from offering work elsewhere unless they get permission. I have been trying for months to get comments from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as to whether this represents an illegal restraint on trade. Restraint of trade is defined as “any contractual terms which restrict a person’s freedom to trade or engage in business”. Seems pretty clear.

So given the context, this document — freshly fallen from the back of a truck — is interesting and perhaps illuminating. It shows The Age’s contributor budget and payments for the 39 weeks of the financial year ending March 28.

theagebudget

First, note that almost all areas of the paper DO have budgets, and most have underspent in the relevant period.

There are some other interesting wiggles. What’s with the Melbourne Life section, which has blown the budget to the tune of at least one handsome salary? Saturday Travel and Business would also seem to be in trouble with the budget.

Overall, the budget is close to $5 million, made up of just over $1 million for the Monday-Friday paper, $2.4 million for Monday-Saturday sections, a paltry $206,398 for the Saturday paper (staggering they manage to fill it, particularly since they have underspent) and $1.1 million for the Sunday Age.

Add to that a few dollars thrown to the “sea changers”, which is Fairfax talk for those writers who have left the company, but remain on some kind of regular retainer arrangement. And of course the inevitable “other”, which has well and truly blown its budget.

But even so, each division has underspent. The thing that makes it appear that the budget has been overspent is the mysterious entry “required savings”  — presumably some management edict, and/or the result of previous overspend.

But the claim that there “is no budget”?  Simply not true.