Murdoch's NY Post Continues To Source Articles From Bloggers With No Credit
from the what's-stealing,-Rupert? dept
Rupert Murdoch and his minions at News Corp. have been going around banging the drum that Google and others are "stealing" from News Corp. newspapers by linking to their stories and sending them traffic. But at the same time, they seem to have no problem totally taking credit for stories that they source from elsewhere. Late last year, the Times (of London), which is a News Corp. paper was caught publishing someone's blog post without their permission at all. And then there's the News Corp.-owned NY Post, which last year had a reporter admit that it was the paper's "policy" not to credit bloggers as the sources for stories. After that story came out, the NY Post insisted that wasn't true, but it appears the paper has been caught doing it again.Andrew Fine alerted us to the news that suggests the NY Post used one of his posts as inspiration for a story. Fine had written about the rather disconcerting sign in a Chuck E. Cheese in Harlem. That blog post got some attention on various other blogs... and then just a couple of days later, the NY Post had an article about the very same sign (apparently, it took two reporters to write that article), with nary a mention of Fine's original blog post (or even any of the other blog posts that promoted Fine's original story).
Now, to be clear, while I do think it's good manners to cite where you sourced a story, it's certainly not required (legally or otherwise) by any means. But where it gets hypocritical is for this to come from an organization that claims that other sites merely linking to its articles are somehow "stealing." But when the NY Post comes in and blatantly borrows an idea from someone else, and does so without credit, that's perfectly fine? It seems like Murdoch and News Corp. have quite the double standard going.
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: citations, ny post, rupert murdoch, sources, stories
Companies: news corp.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
start suing him people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: start suing him people
The news becomes articles of interest not newspapers. News by article is actually where we are all heading and the reason for the imminent failure of the news papers. Peoples habits have changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meh.
Oddly now - I think that's actually more accurate than the reverse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and telling lies is also not right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
Can't they use the "invention is the least of it, execution is what counts" mantra that justifies the same set of actions when we're talking about patents?
The two situations seem very similar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No credibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No credibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No credibility
Anywho, a good, loud, high pitched sound, that's (mostly) too high for someone to hear, will generally clear a room of flies within an hour, two at the most (though often much less).
If you want to generate that sound with your LOUD computer speakers on full blast you can use a program called Audacity, it allows you to generate sound. You can either set the frequency to like one and blast it or set it to the highest that it allows (I forgot) and blast it. The actual sound/frequency as rendered by your speaker though may vary depending on your speaker.
Also, keep away from pets, especially dogs, being it's NOT good for their ears.
The idea of using software to rid a parameter of insects is not patentable or in any way subject to intellectual property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No credibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No credibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No credibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No credibility
"(mostly) too high for someone to hear ... generate that sound with your LOUD computer speakers "
- you will need special speakers, because your typical computer or audio type speakers are not designed to produce sound above the range that the humans can hear as it would be silly to waste money doing so.
"rid a parameter of insects "
- what ? Possibly you meant perimeter
- Have you tried producing the brown note ? Do try, and let us know that turned out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No credibility
"you will need special speakers, because your typical computer or audio type speakers are not designed to produce sound above the range that the humans can hear as it would be silly to waste money doing so."
No, I've done it with regular computer speakers, it works perfectly fine. Yes, typical speakers are generally not designed to produce sounds outside of our ability to hear but that doesn't mean they can't. Also, typical speakers have a smaller speaker, for high frequencies, and a larger speaker, for lower frequencies.
Any time you emit sound, just like with light, you emit a distribution of sounds across many frequencies. For instance, the blackbody spectrum denotes the various frequencies that are being emitted by EMBR (ie: one axis can denote frequency and another axis can denote intensity). You can do the same thing for sound. The peaks occur at a certain frequency but you can hear sound at other frequencies as well. So your computer speakers do indeed emit sounds at frequencies you can't hear and you don't hear all of the sound being emitted. The same is true for sounds/light you receive, certain receptors can receive sound/light optimally at specific frequencies but they receive all frequencies to some degree.
The microphone, in fact, is just a small speaker, you can even use a speaker as a microphone if you wanted to. But the microphone is smaller because its size enables it to more optimally receive the frequencies that we tend to transmit when speaking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No credibility
Dang, I must be seriously sleep deprived.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No credibility
If you left a smoke detector on and didn't turn it off, it will likely drive you out of your house. THOSE THINGS ARE LOUD AND ANNOYING. Well guess what, not all sound that exists is sound that we can hear. Insects hear sound we can't hear and you can very well use that sound to annoy the heck out of them and make them leave. It works, try it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Just NY Post
Jayson Blair (former NY Times writer) was not alone in making stuff up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NY Post steals content
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsGnH-YhzzI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@14 talk to a lawyer
judges dont like people like him
they waste time for real cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
let everybody on the same page of originality-credit-checking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steal this idea!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Steal this idea!
Eh. It's really a non-story. I've written about it every year that it comes up, because it comes up every year when new contracts are due, and it's really kinda pointless, so I'm sitting it out this year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Murdoch vs. bloggers
Here's what happens:
Newspaper publishes story.
Clerks from TV and radio stations pick up first editions the night before they land on doorsteps, either at the printing plants or as bundles are dropped at news stands.
TV station (and/or radio) sends reporter with camera person to location story took place.
TV reporter does his or her own report based on newspaper's story or AP rewrite of same story.
Voila! So-called independent story.
It doesn't make Murdoch any less a hypocrite.
But as someone who looks at RSS feeds from between 90 and 135 web sites each day, I can tell you that the majority (2/3? 3/4? who cares?) of stories out there originate at newspapers in one form or another. Broadcasters are generally pathetic. Bloggers ad their own embellishments and interpretation and sometimes genuinely thoughtful perspective. And they do break stories and add immense value and interesting perspectives to content they don't initiate.
But the kernels of most news stories originate with newspapers. You may not like it, but it's a fact. It may be less true than it used to be but it's still true, based on my fairly thorough but unscientific observations.
I no longer work at a newspaper, having lost my job because of the continuing contraction in that business. I don't blame anyone but newspaper management for dragging their feet for years and years and years.
It does not change, however, the fact that what you describe is the way things have always worked.
But whenever I write something based on something someone else had first, I point it out, and prominently. Most respectable journalists would do this.
Whether Murdoch's minions fall into that category, I'll leave for others to decide. I'm biased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Murdoch vs. bloggers
Oh absolutely. It happens all the time. But that's not the point. As I said in the post, I have no problem with this happening -- but it's rather hypocritical to call it "stealing" when it's done to you, but then do it yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Murdoch vs. bloggers
3/4 - Three out of four stories. Are you an idiot? You are talking mainstream press. Here are some really neat non mainstream press stories for you ...
Super conductors now run at 250 kelvin
Humanity is working on self replicating machines
Crowd sourcing and monetary prizes works better than any corporation or government agency to advance science. (no link go find it for yourself)
The list goes on ...
99.99999% of the news isnt done by mainstream media. Main stream media is just eye candy that people read because they are patterned to and in the past it was the only source for news. New papers are becoming less relevant. When a 70 year old with an iPhone sits down next to me and gets news alerts, you know its over for the newspapers and main stream media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As old as the hills.
I used to be in radio and our news guys would scour the local papers and listen to the competition for stories, which they would then go out and report. The other stations and the local paper would do to the same to us.
Sorry, but as much as I dislike Rupe and his execrable media empire, this is a non-story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As old as the hills.
Indeed. I wasn't saying that it wasn't done. It's always been done.
But it's rather hypocritical of Rupert to call it stealing when done to him, but then have his own papers do it, don't you think.
I thought I made that clear in the post itself. I'm fine with it being done, but I think it's hypocritical to do it yourself if you're going to call other people doing something similar "stealing" and threaten to sue them.
In fact, I'd argue that what the Post did is "worse" than what Google does. In the Post's case they gave no credit to the originator. In the Google case, they link and send traffic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As old as the hills.
It is hypocritical. But it is more rationalization and placing blame. The world is changing and they cant and dont want to. So they lay blame on anyone doing better than they are. They need someone to blame because they cant compete in a more efficient system of distribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cause and Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The evolution of media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course
But in reality the consumer does rule if only they band together. I don't buy Murdoch's products. Why would I support a thief? None of the rich guys are on your side and none of them give a damn about you. Check Bill Gates the great philanthropist, all of his money got stolen from us by selling a buggy product and then it gets sent to help a foreign country. Granted they may need help, but we have starving children in the US also.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really shocked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free online classifieds
Any advertising can be effective if applied correctly. Classified ads can serve as a mini website. You can list all your points of sale, based on your products, add images directly to a website with more information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
available regardless of your credit history. Allow us to get you approved
today! Our trained professionals will work with you no matter your credit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
available regardless of your credit history. Allow us to get you approved
today! Our trained professionals will work with you no matter your credit.
With over 20 Banks and lenders we guarantee the best rates available.
Good Credit? Special programs are available for those with Good Credit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]