Monday, August 3, 2009
Media / Phillips Killing Me Softly With His Blog
Posted by Betsy Phillips on Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:06 AM
too often blogs excerpt long passages of newspaper stories, often with no attribution but a link. check it out: http://tinyurl.com/mgbwdn
Well, of course I had to go check it out, because "How the internet is ruining the newspaper business" is a topic so frequently taken up by newspaper people that it practically constitutes its own literary genre and since I got my master's degree in the related, yet opposed field of "How linking things will save literature," I cannot pass up the chance to see a well-executed example of the form.
So, I follow Pulle's link, where I get to read what seems to be a young journalist turning from common sense--
A few weeks ago, I scored what passes these days for one of journalism's biggest coups, satisfying a holy writ for newspaper impact in the Internet age. Gawker, the snarky New York culture and media Web site, had just blogged about my story in that day's Washington Post
--to what can only be described as editor-induced idiocy, as he writes about what a terrible thing it is to have a place like Gawker link to what you write.
America, Ian Shapira writes for the whole world to see
Gawker was the second-biggest referrer of visitors to my story online. (No. 1 was the "Today's Papers" feature on Slate, which is owned by The Post.) Though some readers got their fill of Loehr and never clicked the link to my story, others found their way to my piece only by way of Gawker.
And yet Shapira spends three pages pissing and moaning about how maybe we should reform copyright laws to prevent this kind of thing from happening. Let me repeat--Gawker sent Shapira an audience for his work that he would otherwise not have had and he's talking about reforming copyright laws to prevent that.
And somehow it's the internet's fault that the newspaper industry grown increasingly irrelevant?
Whew doggie.
Let's, for fun, turn to Anderson, who says, on pages 236 a few applicable things. I'm not going to bore you with them all, but I would point you to this
Traffic that comes from such third-party links (or from organic search results, which are determined by those links) is traffic from readers who are inclinded to like, respect, and appreciate what's there, because they are following a recommendation from a trusted source. This notion of traffic with a positive bias is a brand new thing.
Apparently so new that Shapira's editor at the Washington Post can't recognize the power of being seen as a paper worth being talked about.
And now, apparently, neither can Shapira.
Comments (16)
Showing 1-16 of 16
"Let me repeat--Gawker sent Shapira an audience for his work that he would otherwise not have had and he's talking about reforming copyright laws to prevent that."
Yeah, and for their efforts, Gawker (accounting for overhead) banked a lot more money than did the Post.
A little surprised by your take on this, B. I read the whole op-ed (because I, like all journalists, am incredibly self-absorbed and most passionate about those things which effect my future earning power) and Shapira came off as perfectly reasonable. As you say, this kind of woe-is-me article is practically a genre worthy of its own academic hall, but it's not going to go away for the simple fact that Shapira is right: What he did took time and cost money. What Gawker did took a lot less of both.
We're guilty of gross excerption as much as the next blog. But I don't think anyone at Pith thinks that we're doing, say, the Tennessean a huge favor by sending over a couple thousand eyes, no matter how interested those eyes may be. The money isn't there. The center will not hold (for much longer). Et cetera, et cetera.
like
dislike
Okay, but let me say to you what I'm also busy on Twitter saying to Matt Pulle. When you write a story about someone, she gives you her words for free. In fact, it's unethical for you to pay her for her words.
She gets nothing in return for giving you her words except attention. That's the foundation of the business--someone gives something to the reporter for free.
Now, then, you add value to her words. You analyze them and add to them with other facts. And for that you get paid. But not as much as your boss. Who does not get paid as much as his boss. Who does not get paid as much as his boss. On up the line.
That's how capitalism works, of course, the farther away you are from production, the more we pay you. The less grunt work you can figure out a way to avoid, the more we reward you.
So, why is it that it's okay for you to take something that someone produced for free, for which you give attention in return, and not okay for Gawker?
If the Washington Post thinks they have a fair-use claim, that Gawker used far more than was necessary, then why doesn't the Post sue?
The fact that they don't, that instead they prime this guy to get in the saddle again to complain about what he should be thrilled to have (an audience for his work), says to me that they want it both ways.
They want the attention, but they want to dictate how it comes.
Good luck with that, I say.
I mean, seriously, we've reached a point where people are complaining about having a larger audience.
It's craziness.
So, wait a second...you're trying to tell me that the Tennessean isn't making huge bank from those Netflix and Classmates.com pop ups? The "Are you snoring yourself to death" ads aren't bringing in huge revenue? I totally don't unerstand...
And yet Shapira spends three pages pissing and moaning about how maybe we should reform copyright laws to prevent this kind of thing from happening.
Over-appropriating others' copy may be bad form, but so is misrepresenting their argument. Shapira doesn't spent pages moaning about changing copyright laws; he devotes perhaps half-a-dozen short paragraphs of a nearly thirty-paragraph piece to a useful explanation of how unfair competition rights were written out of copyright laws years ago, and he briefly reports on ongoing efforts by an attorney who would like to restore them; Shapira himself espouses no position of his own on this legal question.
Shapira's beef is that Gawker did a significant cut-and-paste without he considers to be adequate attribution. Others may believe that the abstruse link is sufficient. This is certainly a legitimate subject for informed discussion in the ambit of online journalism and blogging, and, like Caleb, I think Shapira is offering a reasonable mix of reporting and mild argument here.
No one disputes that links that drive traffic have value, and it's a little disingenuous to assault the Washington Post, which has in many ways been a pioneering organization on online news, as an outfit that doesn't get that.
Betsy, you are so right on in this last comment that I've decided to cut and paste and post to Enclave (w/attribution, of course).
The one thing that journalists never acknowledge is that they make money off someone's story without giving their subjects a cut. And then they act all indignant when they make their subject's story their territory from which anyone else unjustifiably poaches.
But I guess the world is full of standards. Some are double.
In related news, this morning I call upon the mainstream media to stop hurting America.
It seems a big chunk of the traditional media simply doesn't understand why it should have to compete for scoops and readers with us plebes out in the hinterlands, us know-nothing "bloggers." Everyone knows we are 20-something overweight dudes who haven't been laid in years, typing away at keyboards from our parents' basement. And eating Cheeto's.
Suckit, MSM.
The one thing that journalists never acknowledge is that they make money off someone's story without giving their subjects a cut.
Actually, journalists rarely make money off of anything. Their newspaper or network are the folks making money.
What I don't get is if it is unethical to pay subjects a cut of the profits from their stories, then why is it so ethical to complain about the loss of money to hyperlinks?
Are the prime objects of journalism to make money and pay stakeholders fair monetary value or not?
then why is it so ethical to complain about the loss of money to hyperlinks?
Well I wouldn't agree that it is. I'd argue that the Post needs to ask itself why someone would rather read the story on Gawker than on the Post's own website and if, when looking at their own editorial mission, they really need give a shit. The fact that someone in editorial is even worrying about the sales & marketing aspects of their newspaper shows a dangerous breech of the traditional "wall of separation" between editorial and sales.
Really all this amount to is whining from the traditional media that they have to share their seat at the table with a bunch of folks that they feel are inferior. We're supposed to know our place, don'tcha know. Defer to our "betters." And rather than come off like a bunch of WATBs they are presenting it as an economic argument.
Meanwhile, we have the phenomenon that prompts Atrios to snarkily call for a "blogger ethics conference" when crap like this happens at the daily fishwrap.
Yeah, well, now Gawker's outed one of their sources as the Communications Manager at the Washington Post, so now I don't know whose side I'm on any more. That was just petty.
I don't know if it's so much a dangerous breach, Beale, as it is someone merely worrying out loud about the shelf-life of their employment.
Breach, ach, not breech. Sorry.
If Shapira is worried about the shelf life of his employment then as Betsy says he should be THRILLED that he wrote something which was deemed sufficiently interesting to garner a Gawker link and generate substantial traffic to his piece.
Before going further I should clarify that I haven't yet read the op-ed in question, just the comments on this thread about it. So I can't say WHAT Shapira's beef was. I'm speaking more in general of what I discern the MSM's view of blogs to be.
Anyway, I wonder how different this is from the person who clips a story out of the newspaper (thus removing it from it's source) and gives it to a friend or tapes it to the fridge. I'd say the major difference is that writer and newspaper actually know about it and are able to track it through the wonders of the internet.
SoBeale, I love your blog and, by extension, you. But before you make any more comments, you really ought to read Shapira's Op-Ed. Normally I'd say you could trust B to give you an accurate run-down of a longish article, but she's pretty far off base on this one.
Thanks Caleb, and I just read the piece. It made me even angrier. Shapira needs to get off his high horse. He has a lot of nerve talking about the "wild and riffy world of the internet killing reporting." He works for the newspaper which 2 weeks ago was busted for selling lobbyists access to its reporters and editors.
Off base? OFF BASE?! That's it, Caleb. You have offended my honor and we shall now have to duel.
The funny part is no one knows if they're David or Goliath. Struggling newspapers and magazines are livid at the internet for disseminating media basically for free and feel horribly horribly put upon. Bloggers need to be honest with themselves and differentiate between actual journalists and freewheeling pissants (I am the latter). They also need to admit that printed media contains a perceived, innate legitimacy they're jealous of and want for themselves. Everyone is right. Everyone is wrong.
