The Copyright Of Cease-And-Desist Letters

Irony: Columnist Who Berates Bloggers For Not Fact Checking, Didn't Fact Check

from the whoooops dept

Wed, Jul 29th 2009 4:57am — Mike Masnick

A month ago, we wrote about a column by Connie Schultz, of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, supposedly talking up a a plan to change copyright law to better protect newspapers from "parasites." This was a dumb plan no matter how you look at it, and Schultz ended up in a battle of words with Jeff Jarvis that kind of derailed the actual discussion on the plan itself. As we noted recently, the brothers behind the plan, David and Daniel Marburger, contacted us (well David did) to let us know that Schultz had totally misrepresented their plan. So we took a look at the full plan, and, indeed, Schultz's column was simply wrong in describing their plan. While we still think the Marburgers' actual plan is misguided, Schultz's write up of it was not at all accurate.

Schultz summarized the Marburgers' plan like this:

Aggregators would reimburse newspapers for ad revenues associated with their news reports.
Injunctions would bar aggregators' profiting from newspapers' content for the first 24 hours after stories are posted.

Neither point is actually in the Marburgers' plan (and, it's important to note that the Marburgers are only talking about a very, very narrow range of "aggregators" which I don't even think count as aggregators). They talk about sites like The Daily Beast, which is a competing publication more than an "aggregator." They make it clear that they think real aggregators like Google News are only a good thing. Also, they flat out do not suggest a 24-hour block makes sense:

1. We do not advocate a statutory 24-hour moratorium on rewriting news reports originated by others. Like you, we'd vigorously oppose that.

2. We do not think that linking to originators' news sites, as Google News does, is bad; on balance, we think it's good for any news originator.

So why bring this up again? Well, it seems Schultz can't leave well enough alone, and has to poke "bloggers" again as being some sort of anti-journalists. In her most recent column she talks up how real journalists fact-check and "citizen-journalist" bloggers do not:

The so-called citizen journalism of most blogs is an affront to those of us who believe reporting and attribution must precede publication.

Fact-checking is tedious; it often derails juicy rumor and deflates many a story.

So... um... why is it that she got her facts wrong and it was blogs that published the full story on the Marburgers' plan? Meanwhile, it was her high-minded colleagues at the Cleveland Plain Dealer who brushed off all the criticism of Schultz by declaring: "It's really a bunch of pipsqueaks out there (on the Internets) talking about what the real journalists do."

In the end, we have an original story that Schultz continues to stand behind, despite it being incorrect. You have a number of bloggers who have been digging into the details, and posting thoughtful analyses of the Marburgers' plan -- while the folks at the Plain Dealer brush them off as "pipsqueaks" who don't fact check? Yeah, that's credible...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm not one of those who thinks there's some sort of war brewing between "mainstream media" and "bloggers." I actually find the whole concept silly. Blogs are simply a publishing platform. Some use them for journalism (including many mainstream media publications). Others don't. Lumping them all together makes no sense. But pretending that old school journalists have some sort of higher ground to stand on just because they work for a publication that prints itself out on paper doesn't make much sense to me.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: blogging, cleveland plain dealer, connie schultz, fact checking, reporting

52 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

John Doe, 29 Jul 2009 @ 5:07am

Journalists are the parasites
Journalists act like they fought the Revolutionary war to earn our freedom and are now the sole defenders of our freedom. Instead, they stood on the sidelines while everyone else grabbed their muskets. They reported on the battles, probably inaccurately, and then sat down to tea and crumpets. They are parasites who only watch from the sidelines as others "make" news.

Even worse though, are the new breed of journalists who are tired of sitting on the sidelines and are now creating news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert Ring (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 5:40am

Irony indeed...
Mike, calling this ironic is like calling Albert Einstein a guy who owned clothes. I think the first word of the title to this article should be something more along the lines of "stupidity."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Yakko Warner, 29 Jul 2009 @ 7:52am
  
  Re: Irony indeed...
  I think it'd be ironic if we were all made of iron...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 7:59am
    
    Re: Re: Irony indeed...
    We partially are, as there is iron in our blood.
    
    Irony achieved...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Yakko Warner, 29 Jul 2009 @ 8:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Irony indeed...
      Well, isn't that ironic, don't you think?
      
      (Actually, I was making a very obscure reference, but the comment system ate my "</obscureReference>" tag. Oh well. Next time I'll use the Preview button.)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 8:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Irony indeed...
        "Oh well. Next time I'll use the Preview button"
        
        Atta girl.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2009 @ 9:48am
  
  Re: Irony indeed...
  Albert Einstein owned clothes??
  
  Rilly?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- v.dog, 29 Jul 2009 @ 12:20pm
  
  Re: Irony indeed...
  Actually, the word you want is 'hypocrisy'. 'Irony' is less apt and tends to be massively over used.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2009 @ 5:52am

Blogs are a publishing platform with such a low cost of entry, that anyone can do it. So you are just as likely to get nutjob with an agenda as you are to get real facts. As I have pointed out in the past here on Techdirt, some of the sources for stories on here are more than a little openly biased and one sided.

Generally, the mainstream media is biased as well, but usually biased within the facts. Checked facts set a bunch of anchor points that make it very difficult to bias a story too far before credibility is lost. It's the difference between Fox and CNN, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the world, etc.

Bloggers have no attachment to the anchor points of a story, often picking only the one little point they like, and then building the story out from there. It's just the way things work.

I would expect to see "professional bloggers" form an association and accredit themselves in attempts to seperate themselves from the masses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Crabby (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 5:57am
  
  Re:
  So, it sounds like only conservatives are "nutjobs" in your opinion? You really need to take a wider worldview -- it's not just the folks you disagree with who have agendas.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2009 @ 6:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    Not at all. I just think that conservatives as a whole are much more tolerant of "nutjobs" (your term, not mine), and often hold them on a high pedestal. For whatever reason (I am not a psychologist), conservatives seem to like having their news feed their fears and desires directly, rather than worrying about the truth.
    
    There have been any number of liberal whackjobs (my term) out there, but they don't usually last too long because most liberals are pretty good at finding out the truth and just ignoring these fools.
    
    It's just how things seem to be, at least from what I can see (and I am as qualified as any other citizen journalist to have that opinion).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous, 29 Jul 2009 @ 7:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The liberals in Washington currently do nothing but hide the truth.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TheStupidOne, 29 Jul 2009 @ 8:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "just as likely to get nutjob with an agenda as you are to get real facts"
      
      "conservatives as a whole are much more tolerant of "nutjobs" (your term, not mine)"
      
      Forget what you said 2 minutes ago?
      
      "Blogs are a publishing platform with such a low cost of entry, that anyone can do it"
      
      So some will be legitimate journalists who do all of their fact checking and editing but don't want the expense of paper publishing. Of course most will be like my blog and just spew personal opinion in a form more like a diary than a newspaper. Anybody who visits my blog to get news is an idiot. But many blogs provide legitimate news coverage
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, 29 Jul 2009 @ 10:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Similarly, anyone who visits FoxNews for "news" is an idiot. The station is almost completely opinion, spewed by conservative whacknuts (my term).
        
        Admittedly, they "report" on some facts in order to get the whacknut ball rolling...but once in motion, you can count on a steady flow of almost stream-of-consciousness conservative opinion, which feeds the conservative fantasy that follows, which finally degenerates into conservative diatribe. Good night, join us tomorrow.
        
        And yet, most would still refer to the station as a news outlet. Odd. Sounds more like a televised "blog" to me.
        
        CBMHB
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 10:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        For the most part, Fox News is what it is: conservative commentary, mostly made up of faxed out Republican talking points. They're no worse than most other "news" stations, they just don't actively HIDE their bullshit the way the others do.
        
        Having said that, if I ever see Shephard Smith in public, I will kick his ass...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard, 29 Jul 2009 @ 6:13am
  
  Re:
  From time to time I have been directly involved in an event that was reported in the press - and hence had first hand knowledge. In my experience press reporting of these stories had varied from inaccurate to ludicrously inaccurate. Others that I know personally have reported the same.
  
  So based on the (admittedly small) sample of occasions when I have been in a position to judge the accuracy of journalism it has been found seriously wanting - so far wanting that I find the protestations of those who claim that "only real journalists bother to check the facts" to be laughable - because in my experience they don't
  
  (btw there is no political agenda here - I am not talking about media bias one way or the other - just accurate factual reporting of mostly apolitical issues)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2009 @ 11:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    From time to time I have been directly involved in an event that was reported in the press - and hence had first hand knowledge. In my experience press reporting of these stories had varied from inaccurate to ludicrously inaccurate.
    
    I, too, have been on the "inside" of three major news stories, none of which were politically or socially controversial. All three of these stories were dramatically incorrect in their reporting of the facts.
    
    For the press to claim some kind of fact-checking high ground is beyond hysterical. The press is no better and no worse than "bloggers," whoever they are. After all, a newspaper/tv/radio outlet is nothing more than a more expensive blog!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2009 @ 6:45am
  
  Re:
  "Generally, the mainstream media is biased as well, but usually biased within the facts."
  
  To the extent that a blog goes out of the facts anyone, including yourself, can correct them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2009 @ 9:02am
    
    Re: Re:
    and besides, I think the free market will naturally choose the blogs that do fact check or at least they will choose the ones that don't for the sake of correcting them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2009 @ 9:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      But in the case of mainstream media, where little competition exists (perhaps that's partly based on lobbying efforts, ie: the government granted monopoly on cable lines) what choice do consumers have? If it weren't for blogs consumers would either have to accept inaccurate news or not accept news at all (since most corrections in the form of letters to the editor are simply ignored).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 7:02am
  
  At least get a pseudonym, will ya?
  "So you are just as likely to get nutjob with an agenda"
  
  Or an anonymous coward in a sea of anonymous cowards rendering any references to things they "pointed out in the past here on Techdirt" moot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AC 2, 29 Jul 2009 @ 7:43am
  
  Re:
  Based on your comments you seem to imply that reporting on Fox is less factual than reporting on CNN. I'd love to see any empirical data behind that belief. Reporting, on the whole, is pretty poor these days. Fox get's slammed because so many mainstreamers perceive it to be waaay to the right. It appears that way more because of contrast relative to the left lean of most mainstream news sources than any absolute measure I've ever seen. But I'm open to be educated.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 29 Jul 2009 @ 1:59pm
  
  Re:
  Uh, do you actually WATCH the news? There are no "anchors in fact" They use sources that they do not fact check at all, and then when it turns out to be false, they rarely retract. Example: Shona Holmes and her "cancer". All lies, and she was part of a group that lobbied against the Canadian healthcare industry for YEARS before her cyst that she claimed was cancer. All this was known within hours of her Fox interview, but never made the news... The modern professional media, TV, newspapers, radio can not be trusted anymore. There is an obvious agenda in all of it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crabby (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 5:53am

I've taken some journalism courses, and I am fed up with the arrogance of the "gatekeeper" attitude that most journalists are taught to have -- or else, they already have. John Doe is right, they really do think they are defending our freedom, but when I turn on the TV and see the Obamafest that the current crop of journalists is having, it's really hard to think of "profession" journalists as being fair, unbiased, or hardworking enough to bother looking for the facts. They just tell us what *they* want us to know.

The fourth estate is bankrupt; it's time for a yard sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Paul Hobbs (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 6:24am
  
  Re:
  I am not a US citizen - I live in Australia - so perhaps I am not qualified (or entitled) to comment on the media in the US. But as an outsider looking in it seems like the American media has pretty much given up challenging or investigating those in power. (I know that is a sweeping statement and there are lots of examples where the media has exposed corruption, etc). That being said, when George W. was President it seemed like the US media was afraid to criticise the Bush administration for fear of being branded unpatriotic (particularly after 9/11). Now it seems there is a reluctance to criticise the Obama administration because he is seen as some kind of Messiah, sent to deliver America from whatever wilderness it was led into by Bush (et al.). Personally I would be spitting chips if my government spent a gazillion dollars bailing out a bunch corporations guilty of all manner of "sins" ranging from plain ineptitude right up to outright fraud.
  
  Now, as an outsider, I can say unequivocally that I am soooo pleased Obama was elected President. I think I speak for just about every non-American person who takes an interest in American politics. But that doesn't mean he deserves a completely free ride - even Obama needs to be held accountable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ondigo, 29 Jul 2009 @ 6:06am

Cranks will out
@AnonCoward is correct to a point. On any given blog, you are just as likely to get a nutjob with an agenda. But those types rarely build up much of a following. And for those blogs who do build up a large following, well, one man's nutjob is another man's Daily Kos. But it is equally true that most journalists do lousy jobs of reporting on local news and when presented with material from some think tank or organization, they will only read the executive summary and work from that. Bloggers who come at something with a genuine interest and/or point of view are more likely to delve into the details, to report the whole City Council meeting, to be interested in the opposing side because it must be countered. Sometimes "objectivity" just equates to sloppy disinterest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 6:18am

This isn't ironic. It's sloppy and elitist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- robin, 29 Jul 2009 @ 7:06am
  
  Re: elitist
  as stated here:
  
  http://www.newsfuturist.com/2009/07/what-missing-from-newspaper-copyright.html
  
  "The trend in reality, and it's accelerating by the way, is that NEWSPAPERS ARE THE AGGREGATORS. The original reporting of daily life now and in the future happens in social networks among peer groups. In many cases now, news breaks on Twitter and blogs."
  
  proof positive from the nyt:
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/technology/companies/29apps.html
  
  with a quote:
  
  "The news of Apple’s rejection of Google Voice was first reported by the blog TechCrunch."
  
  pity poor connie actually, as she clearly sees her world and life's work crumbling and has no! clue how to respond and/or change. so she tells the world how much better she is than them. pity the fool.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - robin, 29 Jul 2009 @ 7:15am
    
    Re: Re: elitist
    sorry, couldn't resist :). from the horses mouth, the divine ms. schultz:
    
    http://www.cleveland.com/schultz/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/living-0/1248510807234110.x ml&coll=2
    
    "If anyone had told me five years ago that newspapers would allow anonymous comments and that we would have to respond to them, I would have invited them to come for a walk with me to the land of grown-ups. Now, I regularly address authors of online comments by their made-up names and pretend this doesn't feel like junior high school all over again."
    
    oh......my......god..................
    
    i hope she didn't ruin a good pair of shoes coming down off her mountaintop to mix, briefly, with the masses.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 9:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re: elitist
      The editor had to respond to those things five years ago. They do still have letters to the editor in the newspaper don't they?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alex Porteous (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 6:18am

I think something that is important to remember about many blogs are the comments. Mike's piece at the top lays out his opinion and really works as a starting point. The commentators can then write their own views and examine the original post and its information. Its a dialogue and when its working it is marvellous.

This is a far cry from the traditional newspaper. They print a piece for their audience to read, they feel that they are the dispensers of news and that we are only the receivers. This lack of a two way exchange means that analysis of what they are saying is harder and the ability to publicise where they have gone wrong is nearly impossible.

I suppose what I'm saying is that a bad blogger should be torn apart by their readers and should not survive. A good blogger will encounter disagreements but have arguments a plenty but they should survive and continue posting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Alex Porteous (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 6:24am
  
  Re:
  "have arguments a plenty" instead. Wish I could edit these posts when I see my typos.
  
  I should also add that comments alone are not the answer. I've seen comment sections attached to many newspapers and there are often many posts of differing quality. The problem is that the originator of the post does not reply and that certainly makes me feel that the views of the commentators are being ignored and that no dialogue exists.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Paul Hobbs (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 6:30am
  
  Re:
  This is actually one of the "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" by Jerry Mander (yes, that is his real name). With television the communication is strictly one-way, and to make it even worse, you (as the viewer) have no control over the pace at which the "information" is broadcast. At least with a newspaper you can read a section, think about it, read it again, think some more, etc. TV stations don't broadcast a snippet and then say, "OK, we'll pause for a minute while you digest that bit". Mind you, technology like TiVo gives viewers that ability - although I doubt many would use TiVo for that purpose.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ryan, 29 Jul 2009 @ 6:24am

waste of time
See, you can't even tell these journalists that they're wrong, because they won't read a blog, an aggregator, or most likely even a site like techdirt. Hell, they don't even read the comments on their own news articles.

They live in their own little world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fraser Ronald, 29 Jul 2009 @ 6:30am

Yet another reason why the trumpeted death of print media really isn't concerning me right now. Just like one has to consider the source when reading an article from a mainstream publication, one must be careful when reading blogs. Everyone's got an agenda. It takes time and effort to figure out the general neighbourhood of the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mechwarrior, 29 Jul 2009 @ 6:31am

"Professional" journalists have given us some of the most inaccurate information possible. NY Times said that The Pirate Bay was ALREADY purchased. Imagine how much time the author spent talking to the "buyers".

No, there is no real line between a "professional" and an amateur or "citizen" journalist. And the only real difference is one dresses in business attire and the other dresses in business casual attire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Alex Porteous (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 6:33am
  
  Re:
  I think the professionals would disagree because they've all had "Journalist" printed on their business cards. Can't argue with that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 6:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    "I think the professionals would disagree because they've all had "Journalist" printed on their business cards. Can't argue with that."
    
    And Al Capone's card said he was a Furniture Salesman. Amazing how criminals lie, isn't it.
    
    More to the point, the media has been riding the Watergate scandal for the past 35+ years as evidence that they are some kind of "4th Estate", mistakenly bestowed upon the American people as the fair and inpartial adjudicator, the ones that can bring down even a President if he fails the people. "We'll keep you safe", they say, "Because we'll tell you what's going on. We're one of you, so we care as much as you do. We'll tell you the TRUTH."
    
    Well you know what, 4th Estate.....FUCK YOU! Nice job on that whole weapons of mass destruction thing, you idiots. And bang up job reporting the facts in the 90's about Bin Laden being offered to us by the Sudanese government, then following it up with that barely a blurb on Clinton lobbing cruise missles into vacated terrorist camps, Asparin factories, Ice Cream machine makers...I think he even managed to take out a Persian Build-A-Bear shop at some strip mall we built after an American developer cemented over a former mosque.
    
    Bravo on the whole reporting on what Rumsfeld has been pushing through the FDA for the past twenty years, or the fact that Prez W. Bush added more signing statements to Federal legislation in his first term than the sum total of Presidential signing statements for the past 30 YEARS!
    
    Fuck you. If you don't want to do the job anymore, then just go away and die. Congratulations, your profession has ZERO credibility anymore. Fox News, CNN, The National Review, and the rest of you idiots killed it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flyfish, 29 Jul 2009 @ 6:34am

That's not irony, it's a daily event. You only noticed because it happened in one of your hot button topics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ArcticChill (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 7:29am

From the North
I lived and worked in the US for a span of time before and after 9/11, I was completely taken aback by the new media before and after 9/11. I moved back to Canada and thought once again I would be in the land of the boring newscaster, where he droned on for what seemed hours about the daily facts. But it wasn't anymore, the newscaster was the same, but the splash and fireworks from the American network news had gotten the better of him.

I turned to the newspapers, they were no better. Headlines of hype and fear mongering with following articles of little or no substance, but there were a lot of ads to read about the next sale at Sears!

In Canada the CBC is a government funded news agency, or rather it used to be but the they've turned to advertising to augment their budget needs. I still read their news online and then go in search of comparable stories from other agencies around the globe and bloggers.

If the news media as a whole could do their job without the need for a dollar you'd have unbiased factual information. As long as they need to "sell" ads to generate the income required for operation then the bias will always tend towards the dramatic and not the factual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bryan, 29 Jul 2009 @ 7:49am

From Cleveland
You also have to consider the overall situation here in Cleveland. This isn't the only time Ms. Schultz has wound her way around controversy because she let her personal opinion get in the way.

But, in the end, it's the end result of having no real competition in the market. They're the only newspaper in Cleveland, and because of that, quality and down-the-middle-journalism is no longer at the forefront.

This isn't the only story that they've blown. And it's not the only story that she's blown, either. But yes, I agree - she should be taken to task. Unfortunately, it won't get anyone very far. Her husband is a powerful politician in Ohio. This will be swept under the rug with the rest of her mistakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Connie Schultz, 29 Jul 2009 @ 11:20am

Why misrepresent what I wrote?
My columns, plural, at Cleveland.com/schultz, were based not just on the Marburgers' written proposal, but also on interviews with David Marburger. I was wrong not to be clear about the 24-hour timeline in my first column, and so in my second column I explained that the 24-hour timeline would evolve through court rulings, not statute. I have also stressed that, like the Marburgers, I have no objection to sites like Google News that run only the headlines and links to original stories.

The latest column you sited had nothing to do with the proposed changes in copyright law. I was discussing the difference between most bloggers and most journalists, and have continued to carry on that discussion in a post today on Daily Kos.

I readily admit I do not have all the answers. I am open to the discussion because I am committed to the high calling of traditional journalism. Ridicule may make for an entertaining post and fuel snarky comments, but it contributes nothing to an honest debate.

Connie Schultz
Columnist
The Plain Dealer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Connie Schultz, 29 Jul 2009 @ 12:12pm
  
  Re: Why misrepresent what I wrote?
  Correction: I meant "cited," not sited, as was pointed out in a later comment that addressed only my typo.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 12:25pm
  
  Re: Why misrepresent what I wrote?
  And now a word from Dark Helmet:
  
  "My columns, plural, at Cleveland.com/schultz, were based not just on the Marburgers' written proposal, but also on interviews with David Marburger."
  
  I don't understand what that has to do with the Marburgers' claim that you flat out MISREPRESENTED THEIR PLAN.
  
  Unless, of course, you are claiming that they told you something different in your interviews than they outlined in their written proposal. I could be persuaded to believe that, I suppose, but look at it from the point of view of us little people some of your other quotes indicate you dislike so much: Connie claims A, Marburger's claim B, written proposal claims B, TechDirt claims Connie said B was A, Connie claims TechDirt is misrepresenting her columns, Dark Helmet thinks Connie got busted and is now trying to justify her bullshit article by claiming that her info was ALSO from super-secret conversations that we just happen not to be able to go through to check her accuracy.
  
  In other words, prove it.
  
  "The latest column you sited had nothing to do with the proposed changes in copyright law."
  
  Take a bit of advice: if you're going to go all high and mighty on the purity and sanctity of the professional journalist, so much so in fact that you choose to address the site calling you out, how about making sure you don't look ridiculous by using an incorrect homonym. Just saying...
  
  "I was discussing the difference between most bloggers and most journalists, and have continued to carry on that discussion in a post today on Daily Kos."
  
  Well, it seems to me that unless you are spending a ton of time getting an EXTREMELY wide-ranging idea of what MOST blogs are putting out these days AND coupling it with an understanding of relative numbers in internet traffic, how communities tend to police blog sites AND can refute what appears to be a great deal of evidence that you "journalists" are essentially reprinting press kits and industry/political talking points--well, I'm just not sure that without ALL of that you have ANY legitimate viewpoint (see, I took a journalism class once too!) on MOST blogs and/or MOST journalists. So.....what is it you're doing?
  
  "I readily admit I do not have all the answers."
  
  Well that's good, since NO ONE does. Trust me, you don't need to admit that.
  
  "I am open to the discussion because I am committed to the high calling of traditional journalism."
  
  A. Some people have quoted you previously saying things that FIRMLY indicate that you are NOT open to the discussion
  
  B. Saying things like the "high calling of traditional journalism" is the kind of elitist bullshit that keeps getting you people in trouble. If you truly think that being a "traditional journalist" puts you in any sense above (hence the high calling) a day laborer, a housewife, a janitor, a salesman, etc., then I have no use for you. Being a journalist is a JOB, and it's no more important than the guy that sweeps the floors, so get over yourself.
  
  "Ridicule may make for an entertaining post and fuel snarky comments, but it contributes nothing to an honest debate."
  
  Ridicule? Wow, I've never been able to say this to a "journalist", but I don't think that word means what you think it means. Mike wasn't MAKING FUN OF YOU (definition from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary), he was pointing out where you were wrong. By the way, YOU admitted you were "not clear" (pah, wrong) about the 24 hour delay, so it seems to me that your only contention is that Mike said you were more wrong than you think you are.
  
  Which is awesome! At least we're all in agreement that you were wrong, it's just the degree of your wrongitude that it's in dispute.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 2:17pm
  
  Re: Why misrepresent what I wrote?
  My columns, plural, at Cleveland.com/schultz, were based not just on the Marburgers' written proposal, but also on interviews with David Marburger. I was wrong not to be clear about the 24-hour timeline in my first column, and so in my second column I explained that the 24-hour timeline would evolve through court rulings, not statute.
  
  Well, that's not what the Marburgers say at all. They say such a situation might come out of the courts -- not that it will. It still appears your initial column was wrong, and resulted in the *Marburgers* having to issue a hasty correction (which you did not). I spoke to David as well, and he seemed upset that you misrepresented their position.
  
  The latest column you sited had nothing to do with the proposed changes in copyright law
  
  Nor did I say it did.
  
  I readily admit I do not have all the answers. I am open to the discussion because I am committed to the high calling of traditional journalism. Ridicule may make for an entertaining post and fuel snarky comments, but it contributes nothing to an honest debate.
  
  To date, the only "ridicule" I've seen came from your colleague calling most of the folks involved in this "discussion" you're supposedly open to: "pipsqueaks."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 30 Jul 2009 @ 6:31am
  
  Re: Why misrepresent what I wrote?
  See the above comments Connie. Let me reprint one for you:
  
  "If anyone had told me five years ago that newspapers would allow anonymous comments and that we would have to respond to them, I would have invited them to come for a walk with me to the land of grown-ups. Now, I regularly address authors of online comments by their made-up names and pretend this doesn't feel like junior high school all over again."
  
  I really want to know what you call letters to the editor. Aren't those letters that anyone could sign any name (gasp! even a made up name!) that were sent to newspapers and printed? While great reporters like yourself couldn't possibly deign to answer them lest your precious time be taken up by actually speaking with the filthy masses, someone at the newspaper did answer many of those letters. So do the editors that you've worked with over the years know that you think they are all junior high kids running around calling people by whatever name they introduce themselves as? How dare you, you selfish, sorry, elitist piece of journalistic crap. From this day forward I will not read a single publication that you have columns in. If I find myself reading one, I will contact that publication and anyone who pays for advertising in that publication and let them know why I will no longer be reading it.
  
  You, my dear, are cancer. You're the reason that journalism will die a horrible death.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carolyn Wood, 29 Jul 2009 @ 11:33am

Irony
Wow, the traditional journalist got there first!

- and if I ever see Connie on the street...

perhaps we can do lunch.

BTW - I don't care if we dress in business attire or business casual attire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carolyn Wood, 29 Jul 2009 @ 11:33am

Irony
Wow, the traditional journalist got there first!

- and if I ever see Connie on the street...

perhaps we can do lunch.

BTW - I don't care if we dress in business attire or business casual attire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carolyn Wood, 29 Jul 2009 @ 11:34am

Irony
Wow, the traditional journalist got there first!

- and if I ever see Connie on the street...

perhaps we can do lunch.

BTW - I don't care if we dress in business attire or business casual attire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2009 @ 11:36am

I thought journalists were supposed to know the difference between "site" and "cite?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2009 @ 11:48am
  
  Re:
  that's what editors are for.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carolyn Wood, 29 Jul 2009 @ 1:32pm

Irony
“parasitic aggregators" - I can see it on FEARnet now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]