soup
@antderosa | facebook | testimonials | ask me anything
topics: syria | egypt | bahrain | libya | china | afghanistan | iran | iraq | turkey | japan | architecture | scandanavia | science | tech | art | design | photography
-
…where is the line between promoting the good work of others and simply lifting it? Naughty aggregation is analogous to pornography: You know it when you see it.
-
There are plenty of examples of reporters going to extreme lengths to satisfy exacting news desks without quite veering into obvious criminality. There was the tabloid freelancer who hid in a church organ for several days, defecating in a plastic bag, to get pictures of Madonna’s baby’s christening; there was the time Rebekah Brooks, then a lowly reporter, disguised herself as a cleaner to infiltrate the newsroom of a sister publication and nab a copy of their scoop.
But the great tapestry of tabloid infamy has always been viewed as an entertaining appendage to public life, mischievous rather than malicious. The UK press looks across the Atlantic and—with, to my British sensibility, some justification—views a moribund print culture that spends more time pontificating about morals than getting stories and making them interesting to readers. As the former Times editor and Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins once put it, “I was trained as a reptile lurking in the gutter whose sole job was ‘to get the bloody story.’” Not for nothing does the trophy for the country’s most prestigious investigative journalism award, the Bevins Prize, show a determined rat nosing up a drainpipe.In the May/June issue of the Columbia Journalism Review, Archie Bland wrote about the News of the World phone-hacking scandal and why there was relative silence in the English media about over the past few years.
In doing so, he explores the country’s cutthroat media culture and suggests that most ignored the issue because most were most likely doing the same.
Archie Bland, Columbia Journalism Review. Anybody There? Why the UK’s phone-hacking scandal met media silence.
(via futurejournalismproject)
(Source: futurejournalismproject)
-
Enthusiast site” is pejorative. Enthusiast implies that MacStories is produced by zealous hobbyists. Not naming the site at all implied that the site was not worthy of being named. To later attribute it to “macstories.net” rather than “MacStories” implies that it is something less than a fellow peer publication, and not even worth the effort of hitting the shift key to camelcase the M and S. MacStories is the name of the website; macstories.net is MacStories’s domain name. This is subtle, yes, but it is a disparagement nonetheless — the most begrudging form of attribution that could have been added. I don’t see the angle on it. Why not err on the side of magnanimity? Bestowing a measure of credibility upon Viticci by naming him would not have come at any cost to Ina Fried or AllThingsD. Reputation is not a zero-sum game. Defensiveness is never flattering.
-
The Copy Editor: Tumblr and link attribution
I’m reading Anthony DeRosa’s post again on how some traditional media companies refuse to enter into the link economy.
The practice is also prevalent here in Tumblr, it seems.
Photos and articles are sometimes posted sans attribution or links to the sources. Other Tumblr users, meanwhile, delete the link pertaining to the original tumblelog that posted the material.
No. If it’s on the web, it’s not yours. You can’t pull out the fair-use-clause card if you don’t attribute or try to claim something that is not yours. Remember Krip?
Fellow Tumblrers: This is important. I see this a lot, particularly when it comes to crediting photos. The rule is, give as much credit as you know, and if you can’t find enough information to credit the photo, quote, or article, DON’T POST IT. This isn’t something to be casual about.
This issue really bothers me. Yes, the photo posts are the majority of it but I see it happening in all kinds of posts: videos uploaded to Tumblr w/o links (Tumblr’s video upload is reserved for videos you’ve taken yourself, no?); text w/o block-quotes and sources, etc. It’s especially disheartening when it’s from “reputable” Tumblrs.
From a Tumblr editor’s perspective, I cannot promote a post without proper link to the source, per Tumblr’s Editor Guidelines, and I refuse to reblog one based on the same criteria. Please take the extra minute and credit.
We (and a lot of our friends, big and small) have fallen short of these standards on some (recent!) occasions, and we’ve been fortunate enough to benefit from the patient instruction of a few standout wardens in the Tumblr community. So the only thing we’d add is: When somebody doesn’t attribute, call them on it! Chances are they’ll do the right thing.
I’m no saint either, but I want to do the right thing, I try to do the right thing and want people to call me out when I don’t.
-
Jeff Bercovici’s “Journalism 2.0 Kills” Article Ignites Twitter Debate With Jay Rosen and Jeff Jarvis
I’m siding with @jayrosen_nyu and @jeffjarvis on this one. I think @jeffbercovici buried his own lede:
Rosen, one of the utopian media futurists I mentioned above, once accused me of having a “guild mentality” because I wrote that a Huffington Post blogger had demonstrated lousy ethics when she duped Bill Clinton into thinking she was a supporter rather than a reporter in order to get a quote from him. (As part of the deception, the blogger, Mayhill Fowler, concealed her tape reporter in her bra.) My suggestion that Huffpo ought to tell its volunteer contributors to adhere to some basic rules when performing acts of journalism was too much for Rosen, who also called me “pathetic.”
Feels like a hit piece to me. @cmonstah gets it exactly right (as usual) in the first comment:
I agree that training and the hand of an experienced editor is crucial in good journalism. And that the evaporation of a media hierarchy has resulted in plenty of unprofessional goings-on at the ground level. (Hello, James O’Keefe.) But, lordy, let’s not act as if legacy media is too dignified and learned to chase ridiculous news stories. (Disappeared white girls, Monica Lewinsky, OJ? Any of that stuff ring a bell?) Certainly that idiot pastor didn’t need the credibility of media coverage. One that, if I remember correctly, every outlet in the universe swooped in on after the original AFP item ran. In addition, all of this overlooks that there may have been *plenty* of factors in Afghanistan that led to the riots. A general dissatisfaction with U.S. policy? Militants looking for a justification to riot? A million other geopolitical factors? Take your pick.
(Source: storify.com)
-
In a move that will undoubtably bring a smile to Ryan Brown’s face, Gawker is not even bothering to seperate the ads from the editorial anymore. In this post-Bloodcopy Gawker, apparently anything goes.
Watch as the editorial department sheepishly points at the ad guys. Is this Gawker’s Tienamens Square?
