Why Not Aggregate Yourself?

from the can't-think-of-any-reason-not-to-do-so dept

With various news publications complaining about online aggregators somehow being unfair, back in August, we wondered why those big mainstream publications didn't just aggregate or, as they prefer, "parasite" themselves. For example, they complain about other sites writing up short "bloggy" summaries of their long and in-depth news reports -- but why can't those publications create their own shorter versions as well?

As if proving that point, the website Gawker (who has been accused of such "parasiting" before) apparently tried this approach itself recently. It had a 2,000 word story that it purchased from a guy who had worked with Richard Heene (the father behind the "balloon boy" stunt). But rather than just leave the 2,000 word story, it also created its own shorter bullet-point version, which is likely what it would have written up if the original story had been published elsewhere. And, while the original story still got a ton of traffic, the summary post still scored a lot of pageviews -- more than the average Gawker post.

If anything, this supports the idea that publications really have nothing to complain about with these sites that summarize their longer stories. There's absolutely nothing stopping them from doing it themselves as well -- and, who knows, it might augment their traffic as well.

Filed Under: aggregation, journalism, news
Companies: gawker

Ripped Off News? Or Spreading The News?

from the what's-the-problem-here dept

It appears that some (certainly not all) in the mainstream press still seems to have problems understanding the value of getting people to talk about what they reported on. They seem to come at this viewpoint from the old line of thinking that a reporter reported on the story and that was it. The story was done. But that's not the way the news works. A news story is simply a part of the conversation. It may be a starting point in a bigger effort -- which is why it's important for so many people today to be able to spread and share the news with others. Yet, if you come at things from a viewpoint of the newspaper article being a final and definitive word, then suddenly such sharing and spreading is viewed as "theft" or being "ripped off" and the person promoting and discussing and sharing your work is suddenly a parasite.

Over the weekend, just such a situation cropped up, when Ian Shapira, a writer for the Washington Post wrote about how he felt when the blog Gawker wrote about one of his articles. At first, he was thrilled. It was validation. In fact, he called it "one of journalism's biggest coups." He should have stopped there, because he was right.

But after excitedly telling his editor about it, his editor claimed that Ian was "ripped off" by Gawker... and Ian appears to have come around to that view. But was he really? Not at all. The Gawker post links to the Washington Post three separate times. And, even worse, almost all of the article they quoted wasn't actually Shapira's writing at all, but quotes from the person he was profiling -- someone Shapira most certainly did not pay. As we recently discussed, newspaper reporters regularly get free quotes and free insight and free advice from various experts, that they get to use in their articles. And now suddenly it's "stealing" for someone else to quote the same people (with a link -- or three) back to the story? Please.

At some point, more people will come around to realizing that when others are discussing the stories you helped bring forth and linking back to you, it's time to join in the conversation -- not scream and whine about others stealing. That just makes it less likely anyone will ever write about one of your stories again.

This isn't even an issue about fair use, as some are suggesting. It's an issue about common sense. If you have a story, you'd better want it to spread, and what better way to get it to spread than to get more people talking about it wherever they want to talk about it. You can't keep all the discussion at your site, nor should you want to. Doing so only guarantees no one cares about what you have to write.

Filed Under: ian shapira, journalism, news, sharing, spreading
Companies: gawker, washington post