Do people who run newspapers realize how modern journalism works?
Markos has a great takedown of a Washington Post article begging for new laws that would supposedly “maintain the viability of journalism as it evolves online”. I can’t help but notice the irony in this industry suggestion :
Federalize the “hot news” doctrine. This doctrine protects against types of poaching that copyright might not cover — the stealing of information not by direct copying but simply by taking the guts of the content. While the Internet has made news vulnerable to pilfering because of the ease of linking from one site to the next, the hot-news doctrine has limited use because it is only recognized in a few states.
Y’know, outlawing the “types of poaching that copyright might not cover” is a two-way street. I’d be rich if I had a nickel for every time I read an article in a major newspaper that was lifted from a indie newspaper (even going as far as re-creating the story from scratch by re-interviewing everyone from the original article), local interest blog (using small blogs as a canary-in-the-coalmine to get leads), or online journalist like Joshua Marshall or Marcy Wheeler (stealing scoops without citation). In fact, I’ve noticed these sorts of “coincidences” at the L.A. Times a lot more than I’ve seen the online “pilfering” that’s such a concern. Even the lamest right-wing blogs (who entertain the notion that blogging as a medium will magically replace the “dead tree” media) have enough integrity to link back to the sources they’re quoting and commenting upon. Maybe if the newspapers would be more honest about their habit of crowdsourcing story ideas, they could develop a less hostile attitude toward the internet and actually come up with a business model that works.
4 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
[...] what the media lawyers share with the so-called “legacy” firms they represent is a misunderstanding of modern journalism. Simultaneously on Twitter, a virtual light year away from the Post’s op-ed page, debate [...]
Pingback by Copyright Law Cannot Save Journalism From Itself — May 17, 2009 @ 11:09 am
[...] Try and stop media “poaching”, and the media itself would be in serious trouble: [...]
Pingback by Midday open thread | News Fu — May 18, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
I’m not really getting the point, is it BAD if Maureen Dowd uses a blog paragraph and doesn’t apologize and attribute until after she’s caught?
Or is it bad when a blog uses headlines from the costly newsroom of a newspaper as the basis for a whole days blog?
Are both bad? Are neither bad? If you think the newspapers are whiny, then why aren’t bloggers being whiny when they complain about attribution.
This whole thing where its okay if WE do it (in this case complaining about use of the bloggers work product) but not okay if the newspaper does it (complaining about the use of the newspapers work product), seems a bit off to me.
This kind of double standard thing sounds vaguely, hmm, how shall I put this delicately??… vaguely Republican (there I said it!)…
Comment by Big Time Patriot — May 18, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
Well, this post is more about hypocrisy, but if you really need me to draw a line in the sand, the key difference is citing original sources. When blogs comment on the news, they almost always credit the source of their quote(s) and provide a link. Major newspapers RARELY extend the same level of professional courtesy to smaller media outlets and bloggers who inspire their work.
Comment by greg — May 18, 2009 @ 3:01 pm