When The NY Times Builds On Other's Work, I Guess That's Journalism [Updated]
from the but-when-others-do-it...-it's-piracy? dept
Over the last few years, the NY Times has been whining about blogs and sites like HuffPo that it feels "pirates" its stories. Former executive editor Bill Keller trashed such things a few times over the past year.Too often it amounts to taking words written by other people, packaging them on your own Web site and harvesting revenue that might otherwise be directed to the originators of the material. In Somalia this would be called piracy. In the mediasphere, it is a respected business model.Now, as I said at the time, this is a pretty silly way to look at things. But it struck me as especially interesting since last week, we broke the news about the feds censoring Dajaz1.com for a year, before giving back the domain name. That was Thursday morning. Friday evening, the NY Times wrote its own version of the story... with nary a mention of our story. Their story didn't add anything beyond reporting what we and some others had done previously.
Now, let me be absolutely clear: I actually don't think crediting whoever scooped a story is really that big a deal. I tend to think it's a nice and neighborly thing to do, but hardly required, and I think some people put too much emphasis on it. However, I think it's kind of amusing that a newspaper like the NY Times, whose bosses have complained about others doing this kind of thing, would so regularly do this themselves. And, yes, the NY Times does this all the time. And, for what it's worth, people definitely noticed.
My point is not to complain about not getting a mention. My point is to highlight how the NY Times' looking down on other publications for supposedly just taking their stories and how that's "piracy," might deserve a pretty big rethink. News travels around in a lot of ways. Sometimes the NY Times gets there first, and sometimes they don't. Attacking others for reporting on the same thing they've reported on is going to make them look foolish when they do the same thing, as happened here.
Update: This morning both the editor and the reporter emailed to apologize and say that the original story did, in fact, mention Techdirt, but it got edited out by accident. To be honest, it's for reasons like this that I noted above that many people focus too much on the whole "credit" issue. The point of this post was never to demand credit, but to point out how when you always demand credit, it can come back to bite you. Either way, I appreciate the NY Times' quick response and the apology.
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: credit, journalism, piracy
Companies: dajaz1, ny times
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Iiiiiinteresting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After SOPA/PIPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: After SOPA/PIPA
Fair and balanced my ass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: After SOPA/PIPA
I quite reading either. I agrigrate my news from reddit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: After SOPA/PIPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: After SOPA/PIPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: After SOPA/PIPA
btw - If CNN is liberal, like so many espouse, then in what part of the political spectrum do you put the likes of Mother Jones, Rolling Stone, etc?
I already suspect the answer will be "crack pot". LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: After SOPA/PIPA
It seems like Fox News being so extreme (for mainstream media) has shifted the center in some peoples minds and things that used to be fairly close to the "middle" are now all considered "liberal" even though networks like CNN push the corporate/conservative agenda as much as any other network. I also wonder if these people who would call CNN a "left of center" network have ever read the news coming out of European countries that have actual liberals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: After SOPA/PIPA
There is no non-conservative voice in the mainstream media...liberalism has been so lambasted and ridiculed, it's socially not acceptable to be non-conservative. It's been this way, since...oh, I don't know, the 60s...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: After SOPA/PIPA
Actually, CNN is fairly middle-of-the-road.
The Democratic counterpart to Republican Fox is MSNBC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: After SOPA/PIPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: After SOPA/PIPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: After SOPA/PIPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: After SOPA/PIPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting bits and pieces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think that is one of the things OWS should be fighting against. Instead of "pay off my student loans", etc. It would make them more of a movement and less of bunch of smelly hippies wanting stuff for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I paraphrased this from many sources...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judith Miller NY Times Judith Miller NY Times
Judith Miller NY Times Judith Miller NY Times
Judith Miller NY Times Judith Miller NY Times
Judith Miller NY Times Judith Miller NY Times
Judith Miller NY Times Judith Miller NY Times
Judith Miller NY Times Judith Miller NY Times
Judith Miller NY Times Judith Miller NY Times
Judith Miller NY Times Judith Miller NY Times
Judith Miller NY Times Judith Miller NY Times
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do not see your point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The point is if the NYT writes an article first, and anyone else then writes an article using much of the same info, NYT screams plagiarism. But let the NYT be the ones writing the article second and using info from another article, like they just did in this case, they don't mention it at all and don't credit anyone else, making them HUGE hypocrites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The observation isn't that the Times really did anything wrong but that it does what all other news outlets do. Cut, copy, rewrite, remix for their audience. So the Times article, while it contains the same facts the one on Techdirt did it is written in the style of the Times and for the Times audience.
It would have been wrong, VERY wrong had the Times and Associated Press among others had been successful in reviving an interwar concept called Breaking News which would have meant the the story on Techdirt couldn't be remixed like this. In effect, though never pitched that way, a special form of copyright. It would have prevented the Times from writing it's own copy around the same facts that make up Techdirt's story. Basically making facts subject to copyright though facts can't be copyrighted.
The other point is that it illustrates the hypocrisy of organs such as the Times. Not surprising but it's always nice to come up with clear examples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I do not see your point.
Really? You might want to try reading what I actually wrote next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, I read the article. Suggest that next time you compare apples-to-apples, and not apples-to-oranges as was done here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 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: Re:
No, actually, that's 100% false. Why must you resort to falsehoods? Keller was specifically addressing HuffPo's practice of "rewriting" stories. Same thing they did here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Last time I looked facts were not covered by Title 17, but only original expression. Are you suggesting that the NYT's article meets the test for copyright infringment? It certainly seems so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is NO SUGGESTION of copyright infringement in the subject post by Mike. He is merely pointing out that the NY Times happily participates in the new media ecosystems but their leadership notoriously complains about people (bloggers and others) taking the NYT original content and repurposing it to get profit. The situation is turned on its head in this case (and many other cases): NYT is repurposing and not crediting their sources. In other words, they continue to participate in the natural ecosystem and should probably think of this example when next complaining about the way "bloggers" operate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Masnick's deep seated antipathy to copyright law leads him to try and turn virtually every comment by companies like the NYT into a screed against what he terms "monopolies" (though, in fairness, there are others who likewise use the same term). Copyright is evil, unnecessary, and is used by holders of such rights to improperly stifle the actions of others.
He does much the same with patents, using the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants" (i.e., those who have come before) to denigrate the law and inventors in general.
In a true apples-to-apples comparison, Masnick would have demonstrated that the NYT engaged in the activity it decries if here it had taken his original article, made only simplistic, minor, non-meaningful alterations and then passed it along as its own original work. Of course, the NYT did no such thing, so to try and use this situation to malign the NYT as not "practicing what it preaches" is disingenuous to a fault.
This is why I looked to copyright law to see how it relates to this situation. Did the NYT present an article of the type noted immediately above? If so, then it would most certainly be a copyright infringer absent fair use. Hence my question "What is your point?" Masnick wrote an article using his own original expression, and the NYT did likewise. Facts are not subject to copyright, but original expression is (the so-called "idea/expression dichotomy).
Simply put, I see nothing here that the NYT has engaged in the activity it deems inappropriate, and to state otherwise is nothing more than Masnick trying to craft an argument based upon a truly apples-to-oranges comparison.
Masnick does with regularity present thought provoking articles here, but this is not one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You really can't read, can you? This story HAD NOTHING to do with copyright or monopolies.
I think your deep-seated antipathy towards anything I write leads you to try to turn virtually every story into something for you to be an absolute idiot over. Seriously, LEARN TO READ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What they have decried are those who basically regurgitate a NYT article with little, if any, effort to create a news article that represents truly original expression from that of the the NYT article.
That said, it is nice to know that your article is being mentioned in association with the NYT article (or at least they have apologized for not extending the courtesy). Some measure of recognition is always nice to receive, even if it is not necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Last time I looked facts were not covered by Title 17, but only original expression. Are you suggesting that the NYT's article meets the test for copyright infringment? It certainly seems so.
Are you that dense and unable to comprehend basic English?
My complaint was NEVER about not getting credit or about them copying. It was about the NYT whining about this exact thing and then doing it themselves.
Let me give you an example: if a politician says that gambling is evil... and then is caught gambling, most people will think that's hypocritical. But calling it hypocritical is not the same thing as saying gambling is evil.
You seem totally unable to understand this basic concept. I do not know why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The comments you recite from the editor of the NYT has nothing to do with the Golden Rule, so why you say they are being hypocritical does not measure up to the facts.
Now, if you can show me a comment attributed to the NYT editor where he spoke indignantly that another news service wrote an article about a subject associated with a NYT article then I will certainly give it fair consideration.
BTW, I regularly upload my photographs to websites that make them available for free to commercial and other users (e.g., SXC). I feel the same way as you do about attribution, and make this quite clear in my profile where I state that attribution is not at all necessary (but a mention if circumstances permit is always appreciated). I have seen my photographs in national ads without attribution, and this is perfectly fine by me. I have also seen attribution. This is nice as well, but again absolutely not necessary. I am simply pleased that someone thought enough of a photograph to put it to use for their benefit...and this includes those who may wish to make copies and sell them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yours is original to you. Theirs is original to them.
Oh, and GFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Higher Priorities
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Higher Priorities
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Update from NYT
journ.us/talMOq
Steve Myers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Update from NYT
--
The news of the return of Dajaz1.com was first reported on Thursday by Techdirt, a technology news blog.
--
and a note at the bottom
---
This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: December 14, 2011
Due to an editing error, and earlier version of this post failed to credit Techdirt with first reporting the news of the return of Dajaz1.com.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Update
Once again, the point here was never about credit, but just about how it seemed silly for the NYT's to get upset about this kind of thing when it does, in fact, happen all the time, even by the NYT at points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]