Washington Post reporter accuses Gawker of ripping off an article
By Dave Parrack
What constitutes ripping off a news story? Copying an article word for word clearly does, and using quotes and selected information without any sourcing or link-backs also obviously does. But what about using an article as the basis for a blog post which tells the news, adds some opinion and provides a direct link to the source? That’s what a Gawker Media writer did and the Washington Post reporter whose story he used as the basis isn’t happy about it.
Do blogs and online news and opinion sites represent the death of journalism or an evolution of the way news is written, reported, packaged, and delivered? This is a huge question that will have to be answered in the next few years as the big, long-running news organizations such as the Associated Press, Reuters, and print newspapers try to prevent their demise.
The AP has been struggling to come to terms with this changing environment of news reporting. It has threatened bloggers for using quotes, and this month unveiled plans for publisher tags on all of its stories that will limit the use of any part of its material. In short, it wants to stay in its walled garden and not let anyone in, even if they would be providing link backs to the AP site and increased traffic as a result.
Now, another long-established news organization, the Washington Post, has entered the fray. On of the newspaper’s reporters, Ian Shapira, has written a lengthy diatribe complaining that one of his well-researched articles was “ripped off” by Gawker Media, the New York-based blog network. Gawker isn’t a splog, an automated blog set up to steal content in its entirety. All its writers are real, hard-working people, and Gawker is a high-profile Web site.
Shapira claims that when he first spotted the incoming link he was chuffed to bits because it meant his story was a hit that would resonate around the Internet and be viewed and commented on by thousands of people. But a word from his editor followed by a bit of soul-searching made him come to the conclusion that he was somehow wronged.
His main complaint seems to be that Gawker linked to his story at the end of the article, where he supposed it was hidden and susceptible to being missed, and in the article itself but without “The Post” mentioned specifically. It doesn’t seem to matter that the Gawker story was the second biggest source of traffic to the original article, or that Gawker essentially played by the book in terms of using a story as a source but adding opinion and commentary to it.
I think Shapira needs to lighten up and tell his editor to stop putting bad ideas in his head. There was no wholesale plagiarism here, no refusal to link back to The Post as the original source. This was just good blogging, taking an interesting story that existed on the Web and retelling it for a larger, more diverse readership. The Washington Post risks getting a reputation like Associated Press if it carries on down this road.
Related:
Entry was posted
on Monday, August 3rd, 2009 at 12:55 am
under
Read more entries by Dave Parrack.
Stumble It!
August 3rd, 2009
If them girls justs gives it up, who’ll get married?
Got to go with the Post on this one. As the recent Michael Jackson situation discussion pointed out, blogging is looked at as less than reliable because it isn’t run through legal or a fact checker. No subscriptions to paid services who feed leads and ideas.
No contributions to the maintenance of a wire service where member media has license to use each others product with the implied adherence to standards and ethics.
Ever see bloggers fired for plagiarism? Making up sources?
Would this be an issue if the Washington Times did the same thing?
Did Gawker get paid?
Seriously, the Post pays the reporter and all the other overhead and someone is getting financial gain without sharing in the expense of producing the product.
If I was traditional media becoming less relevant by the day because it couldn’t compete with the instant delivery, I’d have a problem handing my competition a rusty knife to cut my nuts off.
It would be interesting to see what the blogging nation would be like if they didn’t have the traditional media to use. It’s not likely the bloggers would go out and start gathering the news themselves.
The citizen journalists are providing a needed service, it keeps the possibility of the media manipulating the facts for their benefit. We are far better off with the current situation.
But it is a perfectly valid argument to question the fairness of using someone else’s resources for profit.
August 3rd, 2009
Back in writing 101 we learned to cite our sources at the end of our essays. The Post’s “professional” journalist apparently was absent that day.
Gawker did cite the Post, albeit in a roundabout way. Also, Gawker did not include the entire text or even a majority of the article’s text so plagiarism isn’t an issue. FTM the text quoted is small enough to be argued as fair use under copyright law.
One would think the Post would be thankful for the added traffic and corresponding revenue from ad impressions. But I guess they’d rather lose money then gain popularity. They must be an anti-profit company instead of a non- or for-profit concern.