Some things take on a life of their own and turn into what those of us in the know call a "viral" situation:
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal was not the only one who had a tough week at the office.Last Monday, the word got out that Rolling Stone had a stunning piece about General McChrystal, in which he and his aides were critical of the White House. It’s the kind of scoop that thrills magazine editors, and no doubt they couldn’t wait to get their issue on the stands.The problem was, nobody else could wait either. On Tuesday morning, a PDF of the piece the magazine had lovingly commissioned, edited, fact-checked, printed and distributed, was posted in its entirety on not one but two Web sites, for everyone to read without giving Rolling Stone a dime.It was a clear violation of copyright and professional practice, and it amounted to taking money out of a competitor’s pocket. What crafty guerrilla site or bottom-feeder would do such a thing?Turns out it was Time.com and Politico, both well-financed, reputable news media organizations, that blithely stepped over the line and took what was not theirs.Both companies said that a frenzy involving a significant national issue was under way and that because Rolling Stone itself did not post the article on its site, they took matters into their own hands. Each said that when Rolling Stone protested, it was taken down, and that when the magazine put up the piece at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, their sites linked to that instead.
I don't know if I can blithely accept that they put it up and took it down when asked without saying, "where are your ethics?"
The entire article contained supposed bombshells that transcended the situation. This was a story involving a 4-star general who gave a reporter far too much access. You can argue that content rules may not have applied, but the fact remains thatRolling Stone (shudder) missed a tremendous amount of web site traffic (money) when these other outlets gave their content away.
What incentive does a magazine have to produce a quality piece of content after this incident? None, really, unless the rules toughen up. Shouldn't everyone who broke the embargo on the piece be forced to give a percentage of their online revenue earned during the period when they had the story up to Rolling Stone?
I rarely, if ever, link to pieces in magazines. They are an entirely different animal from the pieces I normally use, which are news stories that come from major publications and wire services. Even then, I try to limit how much of the story I use and I try to use the stories that are virtually released "into the public domain" which means, the stories that appear in the same format on multiple outlets. For me to blog about a wire story about a news incident (or another blogger, as the case is here) is preferable to going to a piece of content that is specifically for a magazine or behind a paywall.
0 comments:
Post a Comment