> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://balaustine.mymagic.page/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# In solidarity with Nautilus's writers
- URL: https://balaustine.mymagic.page/in-solidarity-with-nautiluss-writers/
- Published: 2017-12-13T21:22:27.000Z
- Updated: 2017-12-13T21:22:27.000Z
- Author: VM
- Tags: Life notes, AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science, business models, John Steele, journalism, Michael Segal, Nautilus, science journalism, Undark, #Migrated-1787483357778, #wp, #wp-post, #Import 2026-08-23 11:09

In April this year, *Undark* published a [piece](https://undark.org/2017/04/29/award-winning-nautilus-enters-rough-waters/?ref=balaustine.mymagic.page) that caught me by surprise: *Nautilus* magazine was going broke. Actually, it wasn't a surprise that lasted long. *Nautilus*, to me, had been doing a commendable job of being 'the *New Yorker* version of the *Scientific American*', an aspiration of its own phrasing, by publishing thought-provoking science writing. At the same time, it was an extravagant production: its award-winning website, the award-winning illustrations that accompanied every article, and the award-winning writing itself I knew must have cost a *lot* to produce.

The *Undark* report confirmed it: *Nautilus* had burned through $10 million in five years.

But what had gone unsaid was that, in this time, *Nautilus* had also commissioned many pieces that it knew it wouldn't be able to pay for. This is according to a bunch of science writers who [have come together](https://nwu.org/an-open-letter-from-freelancers-at-nautilus-magazine/?ref=balaustine.mymagic.page) under a 'National Writers Union' and asked that *Nautilus* settle their collective dues – a total of $50,000 – or face legal action. Before you think they're being rash, remember that many of them haven't been paid for over a year, that they're on average each owed $2,500, and one among them is owed a staggering $11,000.

https://twitter.com/edyong209/status/940984780862164992

I laud these writers, 19 in all, for what they're doing. It wouldn't have been easy to have to force a publication that's struggling financially to settle its bills, a publication that, while functional, was likely a unique platform to present those ideas that wouldn't have found a home elsewhere. And – though I'm not sure what it's worth – I stand with the writers in solidarity #paynautiluswriters. As *The Wire*'s science editor, I've often had to turn down interesting pitches and submissions because I'd spent all my commissioning money for that month. It was painful to not be able to publish these pieces but it would have been indefensible to take them on anyway – but that's what *Nautilus* seems to have done.

https://twitter.com/aznfusion/status/941046811397120000

When *Undark*'s report was published, I'd [blogged about *Nautilus*'s plight](https://gaplogs.net/2017/05/04/farther-field-on-nautiluss-troubles-the-wires-endgame-and-freelancer-fees/?ref=balaustine.mymagic.page) and speculated about where they could've gone wrong, assisted by my experience helping build *The Wire*. I'd like to reiterate what I'd written then. First: *Nautilus* may have taken on too much too soon. For example, the magazine may have put together awesome visuals to go with its stories but, from what we at *The Wire* have observed firsthand, readers are evaluating the writing above all else. So going easy on the presentation until achieving financial stability may not have been a bad idea. Second: In commissioning content it knew it couldn't afford, *Nautilus* squandered any opportunity to build long-term relationships with the people whose words and ideas made it what it is.

The [open letter](https://nwu.org/an-open-letter-from-freelancers-at-nautilus-magazine/?ref=balaustine.mymagic.page) penned by the science writers to *Nautilus* also brings another development to the fore. When John Steele, *Nautilus*'s publisher, had been under pressure to pay his writers earlier this year, he had cleared some partial payments while simultaneously them promising that the remainder would come through when the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) had finished 'absorbing' *Nautilus* into itself. This didn't bode well then because it left the consequences of this acquisition on the magazine's editorial independence unclear. Since then, the letter says, the acquisition has fallen through.

While I'm not unhappy that *Nautilus* isn't merging with the AAAS, I'm concerned about where this leaves Steele's promise to pay the writers. I'm also concernfully curious about where the money is going to come from. Think about it: a magazine that used up $10 million in five years is now struggling to put together $50,000\. This is a sign of gross mismanagement and is not something that could've caught the leadership at *Nautilus* by surprise. Someone there had to know their ship was sinking fast and, going by Steele's promise, put all their eggs in the AAAS basket. One way or another, this was *never* going to end well.

*Featured image credit: NWU.*