Beat Reporting, Fair Use, Twitter And Free Expression: Mashing Up Some Thoughts
from the what's-happening-here dept
There are a few stories that have been getting some buzz this week for separate reasons, that when combined, paint an interesting picture of our current media landscape. The first was that some baseball reporters picked up on the current debate over fair use when it comes to reporting, aggregating and sharing the news. I think the focus on "fair use" in these stories is a bit misleading. Most people view web-based communications as a part of a conversation. And if you're talking about an interesting story you see, you don't tell that person I can only read you some of it because more would be illegal. You discuss what you think is relevant. That's just a part of the conversation. Holding back the natural flow of dialogue by way of copyright law seems like a clear limit on free expression and free speech.One of my favorite beat writers, Pete Abraham for the Journal News, picked up on this story and encapsulated what I believe is the love-hate notion that many newspaper journalists have in these situations:
I'm usually flattered if some other blog links to my work. I figure anything that brings more readers here has to be good. But for every responsible blogger out there, there are other who cut and paste the work of others and either pass it off as their own or barely credit the author.There are two separate issues Pete raises here, and I'd like to address both. The first is the question of "bad actors" in the space. These are the so-called "parasites" that the Marburgers discuss. The problem is that there's really no problem at all here. No one seems able to point out any such real "parasite" site that actually gets any significant traffic. Most readers who actually follow these issues figure out pretty quickly to go straight to the source itself. In fact, that's how I first discovered Pete's own blog many years ago. I saw him quoted in three separate places within a week, and thought "hmm, this is someone I need to follow." And even though I grew up in NY, I'd never even heard of The Journal News (apparently it publishes north of NY City in Westchester). But these days, I trust Pete's reporting over anyone else's and go to his site first for any news about the Yankees -- because he's built up that reputation, works hard to increase value and (most important of all) has done an amazing job cultivating community, mostly via his amazing blog.
If you know the solution, contact the newspaper industry because you will be a well-paid consultant. The problem will soon be this: If newspapers decide they can't afford beat writers, where will that information come from? Somebody has to get on the plane, go to Toronto and ask the questions.
This is a point that we've tried to bring up multiple times before. Many old schoolers view the newspaper business as being in the business of delivering content to the masses. But that's never actually been true. The newspaper business has always been in the community building business. It would bring together a community around local news and then sell their attention to advertisers. The problem today is that there are so many different places to get a community, that the newspapers have competition.
And, in NY, when it comes to the Yankees, there's a lot of competition. But by really building a community and cultivating it, Pete stands out above everyone else. The NY Times beat writer for the Yankees is a guy named Tyler Kepner. He's great as well, and you can get much of the same information that Pete posts on Kepner's blog (or Twitter feeds), but for some reason, Pete's blog feels more comfortable. The NY Times' blog feels... sterile. You can see it as you start to dig into the comments on both blogs. Sure, there are some crazy folks and some classic trolls (and, you know, Red Sox fans), but there's real community building going on in the comments on Pete's blog posts (and Pete participates at times as well). Plus, they've held real world get-togethers (such as at the Yankee's AAA minor league games).
And while I'm obviously not privy to the traffic numbers, I would guess that from the comments alone, it's pretty clear that Pete's Yankee blog for The Journal News of Westchester gets a lot more traffic than Kepner's Yankee blog for the gold standard NY Times. The content is often frighteningly similar, but the community makes a huge difference. Building up a community is a skill that journalists (and newspapers) need to learn. Whether on purpose or not, Pete's been quite good at it.
And, from that we get to Pete's second point: questioning how newspapers, such as his own, can continue paying for the expense of beat writers. Here there are a few different potential answers. Pete has attracted a large enough community, that if the Journal News hasn't figured out how to profit from him and the "expense" of having him on payroll as a beat writer, then they're doing something wrong. But even if a newspaper couldn't afford him, with the community that Pete has built up, if the Yankees would allow him to be an independent beat writer, I'd bet he could bring in a fair amount of money that way. Team Pete up with a business guy and a tech guy, and go to town. Everyone would benefit. The Yankees would get more awesome coverage and a huge community of vocal, loyal Yankee fans. Pete would still have a job. And us fans would still have a great place to gather virtually.
But there's a separate issue as well. I've already mentioned some of the overlap between Pete and Tyler. But those are only two of the beat writers. There are also Yankee beat writers from the NY Post, the NY Daily News, Newsday, the New Jersey Record, WFAN, MLB.com and perhaps some others as well. I follow a bunch of their blogs and Twitter accounts, and there's a tremendous amount of overlap. I am not saying to just dump them all and have a single beat writer. But at some point you do have to wonder about why it makes sense to have so many reporters effectively reporting the exact same thing.
Also, there are other models that are coming out for paying for reporters. Mark Cuban has talked about actually having the sports teams pay the newspaper for coverage -- which certainly horrifies some reporters, but is yet another potential model, since the teams themselves benefit from the coverage. On top of that, we're seeing nationally focused publications -- such as ESPN and Sports Illustrated -- snap up lots of top reporters. Hell, just this week Sports Illusrated hired away another favorite of mine, Joe Posnanski. And while they don't do so yet, you could see national media like that add beat reporters as well.
Of course, if they're going to do that, they shouldn't do silly things like tell their reporters they have to limit their Twitter usage, as ESPN recently did.
Then, you have the fact that there are many impressive fan-driven blogs adding to the ecosystem as well. I'm certainly not suggesting that the fan-driven blogs replace the beat reporters, but it is an addition that fills in a lot more information and insight. I get a ton of insightful analysis about the Yankees via River Avenue Blues, a blog run by three fans, who are knowledgeable, thoughtful and insightful when it comes to the state of the Yankees. And, sometimes they get or break news as well. While these fanblogs and the beat reporters mostly have a pretty good relationship, you'd think that those could be leveraged even more, to enable the creation of more great content that drives more community. Teams should allow more access to the top fan blogs, and the news publications should be teaming up with some of the best fanblogs as well to leverage their insight and traffic for their own business models.
And, finally, let's not forget the fact that the athletes themselves suddenly have the ability to go direct as well. While the NFL is trying to crack down on players using Twitter, the fact is players have more direct channels to reach fans and provide information as well. Again, this is not a replacement for beat reporters, but does add to the ecosystem as well. And, at times, those players are breaking news themselves.
So you have a situation where there is more information than ever before out there about sports teams. There are more ways for fans to convene and converse with each other, with professional reporters and with the athletes themselves. Technology has made it cheaper and easier to do all of this -- and the ability to bring together a community of folks has not diminished even slightly. If you can't make money with all of that, then you've got bigger problems.
However, since Pete insists that anyone who has an answer to how to keep funding beat reporters employed can make a living as a well-paid consultant, he should tell his bosses at Gannett to contact us. We're more than happy to help put together a strategic plan for how to keep Pete and others gainfully employed.
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: beat reporters, fair use, journalism, pete abraham, reporting, sports reporting, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Journal News
1. I grew up in Rockland County, NY where the Journal News was known as the Rockland Rag. Glad it's finally got something going for it.
2. You're wrong about the news business. It's not about the news or about community. As Edward R. Murrow was told by his bosses, it's about selling soup. There's a reason why you never see exposes on shady car dealers in newspapers: they pay the rent with their huge ads. And there's a reason why the media bought into Bush's war in Iraq: that was good flag-waving business, which the advertisers wanted to be associated with.
3. Re ESPN, Frank DeForde made a good point in his NPR commentary this week: ESPN is buddy buddy with all the players they are supposed to be reporting on, resulting in incredibly skewed news. The same would be true if teams paid for their own coverage. Which can be seen in such journalistically sound publications as Yankee Magazine. In fact, leagues, especially the NFL and NASCAR, are trying to make their coverage better by limiting journalistic access and giving more footage and material to their house organs, like the NFL Network, so what fans most see is their own propaganda.
4. I agree that having so many beat reporters is nonsense, in part because they act like a herd. Check out spring training or preseason coverage. Every day the reporters pick a guy to feature and figure out some story about him. I mean the Jets' Kareem Brown having his buddy killed in a car crash in front of him was gold to these guys. (But did any ask the obvious question: "You and he were go fast enough that his car was totalled and he was ejected from it on long, straight, two-lane University Drive at 3:30am: Were you racing?" Of course they didn't.)
I wish beat reporters would turn the questions over to their fans and ask those questions. Of course, if they did, the reporter would probably get blackballed, like the Knicks blackballed the Daily News's beat reporter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Journal News
that's the beauty of competition. when you have more than one outlet for news, there is a greater chance that you will get news from someone who isn't selling car ads. this is why blogs and comments on news stories is so important.
this is also why so many people want to keep the news business a one way street where the company broadcasts and the public listens instead of hosting a conversation about the subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Journal News
"If you know the solution, contact the newspaper industry because you will be a well-paid consultant. The problem will soon be this: If newspapers decide they can't afford beat writers, where will that information come from? Somebody has to get on the plane, go to Toronto and ask the questions."
Nobody has to get on the plane if you have people there from the begging. Like websites have with their large communities that are spread around the world.
Want news from Sweden? Ask me and I'll get you some.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://forums.christianity.com/Pre-Crime_Arrests_-_MSNBC/m_4476470/mpage_1/tm.htm#1
Just listen to her and listen to what Obama said and tell me our media isn't totally and utterly corrupt. This is on MSNB, how could they even tolerate such a gross and utter misrepresentation of the facts. Again, I may not agree with Obama on many issues, that's not my point, my point is to point out the complete poor quality of this persons reporting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think you've drawn the definition of "parasitic aggregator" too narrowly. The Marburger's report defines a parasitic aggregator as follows:
We label as "parasitic" those aggregators that subsist on the journalistic services of originators of news reports without the originators' consent, and post enough of the substance of the originator's report to divert materially more readers away from originators' reports than to the originator's report - essentially making the originator's report redundant.
In this sense, Techdirt, Slashdot, and many other sites exist somewhere on the spectrum of parasitic aggregators. Whether or not you add your own dash (or heaping tablespoon) of opinion atop your summary doesn't exempt you; it's not even in the metric.
Now, the Marburger's have established a specific knee point at which an aggregator falls into their "parasitic" category: when N people read your article summary or blog post, do fewer than N/2 of them click through to the original article? To me, it seems that N/2 is sort of an arbitrary number, as N/4 could still be thousands of people on a busy blog site.
According to Alexa, Techdirt gets about a seventh as much traffic as the Kansas City Star. Slashdot gets about 2-3 times as much.
I don't know how many people read a summary of a linked article here on Techdirt or Slashdot and subsequently don't click through to read the actual article. Those would be some interesting numbers. I know that even posting about an article without reading it is common enough to be a joke/meme on Slashdot, so that's some indication.
There are also ways I see blogs and aggregators making the situation even worse: the "originator" link doesn't go to the originator at all. It goes to a previous post on the same site (e.g., Techdirt) or a blog post about the original article. The "originator's" writeup can be two, three, or more clicks away.
One attitude I've seen repeatedly is that if a blogger or aggregator simply links to the original article, they've done their duty to support the originator of the news. AS the report points out, this is only partially true. How much they have supported or detracted from the originator depends on how many people feel compelled to "click through" to get the full story.
Additionally, since the aggregator does not have to do the relatively expensive tasks of fact gathering and journalism, they can charge less for ads on their site and still make a profit. This drives down ad rates across the board, making life for those companies with higher expenses (for fact-gathering and journalism) even harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If modern newspapers are so confident of the value they bring to the table they should charge (or try!), or make their stories unlinkable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
News is Dead, Long Live the News
I wonder if we will see a similar evolution in written word reporting, or perhaps all reporting, now that media distribution is not controlled by centralized corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reporting isn't about covering what you like when you like it, reporting is about covering what is news no matter how you feel about it, on a schedule, no vacations, no off days, no personal "bobby wouldn't sign my hat" horsesh-t.
So how do you make it work out? Well, you pay them. But in the end, newspapers, radio, TV, magazines, they are already doing that, plus they have viable (or semi-viable) methods to actually get enough income to afford to keep doing it. Fan based sites don't have to make a penny of income, but that lack of a business model breeds that lack of reliablity. Basically, if you are getting paid to do a job and don't do it, you get fired. If you aren't getting paid and you don't do the job, are you going to fire yourself?
It is fine to turn everything into a discussion after the fact - publish the story, allow comments and discussion. But if everything becomes only a discussion, then you stop getting the news, and you start getting only the views. After that Faux News Channel will look factual indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As if mainstream media is any more reliable, look at my second post describing how unreliable MSNBC can be (and it was me, on a message board, that corrected their nonsense). We've corrected many errors on mainstream media on these blogs, one of the reasons I don't get my news from mainstream media is exactly because they are very very unreliable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you keep watching to see what they are going to screw up next, you are just playing to their hands.
If you hate MSNBC that much, start a h8tr blog and go for it. We get your point, can you move on to another item now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Notice my sentence that says, "one of the reasons I don't get my news from mainstream media is exactly because they are very very unreliable."
Are you suggesting that I should not criticize unreliable sources whatsoever, we should just allow them to be as unreliable as they want and then allow the government to maintain a structure that fosters such unreliable information by granting monopolies to cable companies? Nonsense, this undermines the very reason why monopolies are bad, because monopolies allow companies to get away with poorer products (ie: less reliability) at a higher price (ie: more commercials) since those who want the news would be forced to accept less reliable data. There is nothing wrong with criticizing such infrastructures.
Yes, we have the Internet, and that's a good thing, that's exactly what I'm pointing out, that I can get more reliable information from the Internet than I can from the news and I'm refuting your assertion that mainstream media is somehow more reliable. Am I not supposed to do that?
I don't generally watch them, someone pointed that link in an attempt to criticize Obama, I found it and I just corrected them and noted the unreliable nature of MSNBC. You are assuming that I have to watch NBC in order to criticize them or that just because I find them unreliable I shouldn't watch them whatsoever. I can watch them and then look on the Internet for more reliable information and then I am free to criticize their unreliable nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If blogs are so unreliable, STOP GOING TO BLOGS. Start watching MSNBC instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't hate MSNBC, I am merely correcting the idiot that said blogs are less reliable than mainstream outlets. What, am I not allowed to do that? People go to this blog even though they may think it's unreliable, the person who went to this blog complaining about blogs being less reliable clearly entered this blog, if he finds them unreliable he can just leave. Just because I find something unreliable doesn't mean I can't listen to them and criticize them or laugh at them or just take their views into consideration.
And don't tell me when to move on to another item, someone else was the one that called blogs unreliable and I was merely responding to them, what, you want to shut those up that disagree with you simply because you can't defend your stupid position? Nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's the rub: MSNBC may not be as reliable with the facts (for your liking), but you can always be sure that when you turn them on that there is in fact something there. Bloggers are notorious for coming and going like the breeze. Even the most reliable of them disappear for days / weeks at a time as their real lives take them away from their blogs.
"Reliable" is measured in many ways, not just accuracy on that moments that someone decides to report something, but in their ability to report regularly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mostly commercials (In fact, to me NBC = Nothing but commercials) and MSNBC doesn't always have news, I can go to the channel and there maybe other things besides news (ie: some T.V. show).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A: the fact that there is always something on does not justify them being incredibly and constantly unreliable.
B: Removing the monopoly granted to cable companies does not mean that the entities that enter the market will provide us with stations that don't always have something on.
C: If a blog goes on vacation I can go to another blog that I like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was specifically referring to accuracy. Quality is often > quantity (well, you need some quantity too of course). I can turn on my radio to a station that gets no stations and I can reliably get noise but it's useless to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paying the Beat Reporters
The problem is that there's really no problem at all here. No one seems able to point out any such real "parasite" site that actually gets any significant traffic. Most readers who actually follow these issues figure out pretty quickly to go straight to the source itself. In fact, that's how I first discovered Pete's own blog many years ago. I saw him quoted in three separate places within a week, and thought "hmm, this is someone I need to follow."
Are you only using yourself as an example? Where did you get the idea that most people actually click through? Also, I think you missed the point; the problem is that these parasite sites cut-and-paste without giving credit or links. Even if he/she wants to click through, it's not possible.
Mark Cuban has talked about actually having the sports teams pay the newspaper for coverage -- which certainly horrifies some reporters, but is yet another potential model, since the teams themselves benefit from the coverage.
What? Were you born last night? Are you advocating that reporters simply distribute propaganda? Bush tried this, and look at the disaster it caused in the media. Reporters were simply publishing White House "talking points." Cheney intentionally gave a "story" to the NY Times and then later legitimized his viewpoint on TV by quoting that same story in the Times. If all reporters are either tied in knots or on the take, then who's left to report the real news? Parasite bloggers?
However, since Pete insists that anyone who has an answer to how to keep funding beat reporters employed can make a living as a well-paid consultant, he should tell his bosses at Gannett to contact us. We're more than happy to help put together a strategic plan for how to keep Pete and others gainfully employed.
Isn't this a bit presumptuous? Do you have a track record in this area? If you have a solution to the problem, then don't hold back. Let us know so we can publish your secret sauce on our own sites and keep the profits!!! :-)
Best,
Dan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
Not any more often than mainstream media does it, and I find blogs to be far better at giving credit where credit is due. Even back before blogs were around and the mainstream media was the predominant source of news I noticed that mainstream media sources did copy each other all the time without giving credit. And if there is a blog that copies sources and doesn't give credit I (and others) could simply find another blog, but in the case of a top down structure from mainstream media there is less competition so it would otherwise be more difficult to find another source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
If you follow a topic seriously, you discover very quickly who the trustworthy and credible reporters/bloggers/commentators are in the space. If there's a true "parasite" that doesn't cite, that gets outed incredibly quickly.
What? Were you born last night? Are you advocating that reporters simply distribute propaganda?
No, I didn't say that at all. I said that was one method of many. And, if you actually read the proposal, you'd see that the idea was that it would have editorial independence. Again, the idea is not that this was the only source of coverage, but one of many.
Isn't this a bit presumptuous? Do you have a track record in this area?
Are you new here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
News reporting is a very old profession, and though the Internet medium is new, it doesn't mean that we have to dispense with traditional methods of getting stories published. I want reporters to be both dedicated and unbiased, and for that to happen, they must be paid from a source that is insulated from bias. Blogs that cut-and-paste, even if they DO give credit, only complicate the situation by threatening the revenue stream. True, blogs can, as you said, add to the sense of community, which may help the revenue stream, but outright copying does neither add to community or pay the reporters.
Further, the idea of having the source pay for the story will directly interfere with bias. I'm thinking that idea shouldn't even be mentioned! But I suppose you felt obligated nevertheless to mention it, as it is, after all, one of the ideas being floated out there.
Thanks
Dan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
That sounds very anti freedom of speech.
"News reporting is a very old profession, and though the Internet medium is new, it doesn't mean that we have to dispense with traditional methods of getting stories published."
The new methods are working just fine, thank you very much, we don't need government regulation to screw it up and make the news as unreliable as MSNBC. I don't need a top down structure for news that provides me with fabricated nonsense every time I turn it on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
No such thing, EVERYONE is bias, you, me, ABC, FOx, EVERYONE. The best way to remove bias is to have the free market of ideas that the Internet currently provides, because when it run on the television all I am fed, on just about every station, is biased information that's often flat out wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
This is not about optimizing producer surplus, this is about optimizing consumer surplus. The blogs I, and many others, visit don't just cut and paste, they comment on the news, correct factual mistakes, and there are even blogs with people that conduct their own research and provide their own journalism. We don't need the government to restrict our freedom of speech in a way that would turn the news into nothing but lies like has already been done with mainstream media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
What you're basically arguing is that blogs and the Internet are providing a lot of consumer surplus and your thinking, "hey, look at all that consumer surplus. I want to take some of that consumer surplus and convert it into producer surplus in a way that benefits me at the cost of aggregate output and society." NO, people shouldn't stand for this nonsense. This isn't about the producers, its' about the consumers and increasing aggregate output and the current system does just fine.
Just like with taxi cab medallions and all those stupid regulations that make it more difficult to become a taxi cab driver. Some evil moron said, "look at all the consumer surplus created by these taxis, why should consumers have so much surplus? Lets turn as much of it as possible into producer surplus in ways that would benefit me at the cost of aggregate output to society" and that's exactly what they did. Society should tolerate no such thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
You talk about "some evil moron" without explaining his or her motivation. Is it just for the sake of causing trouble? Dude, if that's the case, then I would agree with you that regulation is an unnecessary tool of the evil morons that shouldn't be stood for. Fortunately, I don't agree with you. True, there are some evil morons in society, but their numbers haven't yet risen to the level of actually controlling everything for arbitrary evil reasons.
Regarding your statement about blogs and the Internet providing a lot of consumer surplus, I don't have any idea where you're coming from on that one. I just want reporters to keep reporting on the news and get paid for their service. Are you arguing that they shouldn't get paid? I don't think you are, but then, if everything is free, I don't see how reporters could get paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
In other countries where no such regulations exist (I've been to such countries) it's not that bad. Yes, there are a bunch of taxi drivers but no riots, it's civilized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
What airports have you been to that don't enforce some sort of organization? I'd like to compare notes. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
You are building a strawman, no one is saying they shouldn't have organization. Everyone follows some sort of organized pattern, it's why we get our drivers license and such. I am arguing against the medallions and laws that make taxi drivers artificially expensive for no good reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
"On May 2, 2008, the TLC will be selling 86 corporate (minifleet) accessible medallions, 2 independent alternate fuel medallions, and 1 independent accessible medallion at auction. This auction will increase taxicab service to the public and provide career opportunities for those who wish to own and operate a taxicab business. After this auction, all of the medallions authorized by the legislation will have been sold, and the TLC will not be selling new medallions."
http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/medallion/html/background/main.shtml
This is nonsense, why should these people limit supply here. Please don't make strawman arguments about, "we need order" none of this has anything to do with creating order, order and rules are perfectly plausible without creating unnecessary artificial scarcity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
I am not advocating anarchy, I am promoting free speech and the ability for anyone to have the distribution channels to express their free speech. The government does have a job to prevent things like murder, but regulating taxi cab drivers and free speech for the sake of helping special interest groups at the expense of everyone else is not acceptable.
"True, there are some evil morons in society, but their numbers haven't yet risen to the level of actually controlling everything for arbitrary evil reasons."
Then why is it when I turn on the news I see more lies than truth?
"I just want reporters to keep reporting on the news and get paid for their service."
No one is arguing against this so stop building a strawman. But the free market is working just fine.
"Are you arguing that they shouldn't get paid?"
No one is arguing any such thing.
"I don't think you are, but then, if everything is free, I don't see how reporters could get paid."
First of all, no one is entitled to get paid for their work. I can go outside and play the flute in public and no one is entitled to pay me a dime. So stop acting like these people are entitled to payment. They get paid what the free market pays them and if they don't like it many others will be more than happy to take their place (as has been shown on this blog over and over).
If a reporter wants to offer his/her services for free; ie: via some blog, they should be free to. No one should stop them. Just like people can donate to charity if they wish, should they get paid for that too? There are people who conduct investigative journalism over blogs and they are no less legitimate (in fact, I would say they are more legitimate and accurate) than our corrupt mainstream media. If I want to start a blog and offer my opinions on reporting you have no right to restrict my freedom of speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
and if the news sources don't like to be copied all they have to do is add a robots.txt file to their website that tells search engines to remove them from their search space. Then hardly anyone would ever copy them and everyone would switch to the news sources that they are allowed to copy that distribute their news freely. Those news sources will then generate all the revenue and they will stay in business perfectly fine without government regulation. But stop trying to turn as much consumer surplus as possible into producer surplus at the expense of society and you certainly have absolutely ZERO right try and build a structure that in any way shape or form tries to restrict or raise the price of everyone's freedom of speech and our freedom to comment on the news, criticize it, correct it, and give the world our uncensored, unrestricted opinions (provided we don't promote violence or anything like that of course) which includes our ability to start our own blog and give everyone we know the URL and access to comment on it. Our freedom of speech is far more valuable than the profit margins of these reporting agencies, I don't care if they go out of business as a result (and they won't, the free market will replace them with other reporters and has already done so). What's the point of having the news if it forces us to live in a tyrant system with restrictions on our freedom of speech, freedom of speech being one of the very things that news itself is supposed to help protect and advance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
Secondly, you are, I believe, absolutely right about the free market and entitlement. Nobody is entitled to payment. Period. I'm on board with that. But if someone is willing to pay you for a service, then you - and only you - are entitled to that money. You did the work, someone is willing to pay you, you get the money. So if you play your flute in public and someone drops money in your hat, nobody should be able to take that money out of your hat. And if someone else moves into your territory and plays the flute better than you and gets paid more than you, then that's the free market, pal. Tough luck. Just as long as he's not recording your flute and playing it back through a boom-box next to you and making money on your talent.
Thirdly, if you want to start a blog and offer your opinions on reporting, I would be the last person to stand in your way. I support you and your right to have an opinion, even if I don't agree with your opinion. And if you're reporting news, then do so, but just make sure you're not stealing someone else's material.
And ... uh ... do you really play a flute in the park? Man, I don't have the nerve to even try. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
No way, that's just a hypothetical. ROFLOL. I have ZERO musical talent whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
But to what extent does fair use come in where I can use someone elses material to criticize it without having to pay for it? When can I copy text from someone else's blog to criticize it (of course giving proper attribution) without paying the other person and when should I not be allowed to? I certainly shouldn't have to PAY people that I criticize and disagree with, why should I have to fund a view I disagree with when the very purpose of a blog I make was to criticize it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
I'm thinking that reality is somewhere in between.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
Don't confuse the story items (like transcripts) with the story as written (how it appears in your local newspaper or on a blog). There is a difference there. The underlying material may or may not be copyrighted, but the story as written as a whole tends to be copyright to the writer or newspaper in question.
Nobody is stopping you from discussing the news, or running your own site to report the news. You just can't take a USA Today story and run it verbatim without permission, no matter what the story is about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
and lets ensure it stays that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
Because if you see a problem where none exists then what is it you want changed? What restrictions is it you want added when there already exists no problems with at least popular blogs outright copying news sources without giving attribution. Is it that you want restrictions that interfere with our freedom of speech? If not, then why are you complaining?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
"In the end, the biggest problem of "fan run blogs" as a news source is that they are unreliable.
So how do you make it work out?
It is fine to turn everything into a discussion after the fact - publish the story, allow comments and discussion. But if everything becomes only a discussion, then you stop getting the news, and you start getting only the views."
So this person wants something done, most likely in the form of legislation. But people want to make blogs and they want to go to blogs and discuss issues, and it is this very fact that this person is complaining about. So then this begs the question, what kind of solution is s/he looking for? A solution that involves laws that would somehow restrict blogs (and hence our freedom of speech) or make it more expensive to blog (putting a price tag on our freedom of speech) and express our views and read the views of others on blogs and comment and discuss the issues? If so, such a solution should certainly not be strongly resisted because such a solution is a solution of tyranny. and if that is not what he is advocating then exactly what is he advocating? He's unlikely to change peoples desire to want to create, read, and comment on blogs, so that's not going away, so why is he complaining about it unless he wants some law that would limit our ability to do so? What is it he wants done? Or is he just complaining just to complain but he's not suggesting anything should be done?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
"Yeah, kind of new here. If you have a track record in this area, then forgive my presumptuousness. The point I was trying to make was that if you have a solution to this problem, then don't hold back. Methinks this is not an easy problem-space, and answers will likewise not be easy. It means establishing rules by which legitimate blogs will conform and by which reporters will respect. So if you have an answer, then propose it right here in this forum, and let's get some good feedback."
If you have a solution to the problem, then don't hold back. Let us know so we can publish your secret sauce on our own sites and keep the profits!!! :-)"
"Blogs that cut-and-paste, even if they DO give credit, only complicate the situation by threatening the revenue stream. True, blogs can, as you said, add to the sense of community, which may help the revenue stream, but outright copying does neither add to community or pay the reporters."
Just look at these responses, besides the fact that popular blogs do not copy and paste like the conspiracy theorists would like to claim (and perhaps some mostly unknown blogs do but they hardly pose a problem), this person wants a solution that seems to value revenue streams and profits over our basic freedom of speech. Such a solution is nonsense and should be resisted. He wants "legitimate" blogs to "conform," so who is to decide what constitutes a "legitimate blog" and how is this going to affect Joe Blow's ability to blog and express his freedom of speech about whatever the heck he wants without having to raise the price of that freedom. These words sound like they come close to something that wants to threaten our freedoms and threaten our distribution channels of information so that only "legitimate bloggers" can blog. What constitutes a legitimate blogger, one that agrees with you or the government? What rules must he conform with, ones that restrict his freedom of speech? Almost no one is copying and pasting whole articles or parasiting off of reporters without attribution, so what's the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paying the Beat Reporters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But the point is that the don't have unnecessary barriers to entry. As a society we all have to follow certain rules and there is nothing wrong with requiring cab drivers to follow rules, just like the rest of us, but we shouldn't require them to have to pay more money than what normal people would pay for a drivers license to drive a cab. Drivers know the rules to the roads when they drive (ie: don't park here, this zone is for loading and unloading, etc...) and those are the rules cab drivers would follow just as well, as if they were picking up a friend from the airport even.
"In any case, riots don't occur there because someone with uniform authority is ensuring order."
and in the U.S. we delegate authority to the police to prevent riots and, for the most part, it works. Otherwise you can argue that everyone in the airport can start a riot at any time, but it generally doesn't happen. Go to Chili, Santiago where they have tons of cab drivers at the airports and it's a lot cheaper, and they have no riots, it's civilized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just my opinion (and I am merely a newspaper/magazine subscriber), but this seems to me to be a far too narrow view of the newspaper industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just my opinion (and I am merely a newspaper/magazine subscriber), but this seems to me to be a far too narrow view of the newspaper industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"In the YouTube age, such moments are far more likely to be videotaped and go viral. And once that happens, cable programs replay the hot-button footage in an endless loop. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/05/AR2009080501086.html
Parasit es.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Art in the eye of the beholder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
red bull hats
are in stock now. Our site provide first-class service and reliable quanlity garantee, do not hesitate to shake hands with us and go with the tide as soon as possible!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]