Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Seriously, what’s up with old media not crediting bloggers?

cdixon.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 58 posts

Re: Seriously, what’s up with old media not crediting bloggers?

#11

Post by keithwinstein »

Obviously the Fast Company blogger (Josh Linker) should have cited (at the least!) Chris Dixon. And his explanation doesn't really hold water: "A friend of mine sent me that excerpt and I had no idea it was yours or anyone else's so I didn't attribute it when I wrote my post."

But, speaking as a former reporter, it's a fallacy to tar every medium (or even "old media") for the f-up of a Fast Company blogger. The responsibility belongs to that writer and publication; other outlets do not bear collective guilt for a competitor's screwup.

See http://xkcd.com/385/ -- the same argument properly applies to generalizations about newsgathering organizations (or in this case, blogs hosted by magazines started in the first dot-com era).

Re: Seriously, what’s up with old media not crediting bloggers?

#12

Post by scott_s »

keithwinstein wrote: post #11

Obviously the Fast Company blogger (Josh Linker) should have cited (at the least!) Chris Dixon. And his explanation doesn't really hold water: "A friend of mine sent me that excerpt and I had no idea it was yours or anyone else's so I didn't attribute it when I wrote my post." But, speaking as a former reporter, it's a fallacy to tar every medium (or even "old media") for the f-up of a Fast Company blogger. The respo…

or anyone else's

Via what, immaculate typing?

His explanation really betrays the fact that he doesn't understand what plagiarism is.

Re: Seriously, what’s up with old media not crediting bloggers?

#14

Post by cop359 »

donohoe wrote: post #9

"Old Media"!? It was launched in November 1995. To many thats old, but to most I would think thats not "Old Media" in the usual sense of the word.

The "Old" refers to the medium of distribution.

I have no idea what "Fast Company" is, but according to wikipedia it's a printed magazine.

Re: Seriously, what’s up with old media not crediting bloggers?

#15

Post by sachitgupta »

Josh Linker, author of the Fast Company piece, responded in the comments:

  "Hi Chris.  Josh Linkner here, the author of this piece @ Fast Company.  
  I owe you a HUGE apology!!  A friend of mine sent me that
  excerpt and I had no idea it was yours or anyone else's so
  I didn't attribute it when I wrote my post.  As an author,
  VC, and entrepreneur I hold myself to the highest standards
  and I'm deeply sorry this happened.  Will correct and cite
  you ASAP. Again, honest mistake and I'm sorry it happened.
  Happy to chat further if you'd like - www.JoshLinkner.com"

Re: Seriously, what’s up with old media not crediting bloggers?

#16

Post by beloch »

Old media in general does not cite its sources adequately. Most articles that report on research fail to cite the publications they are reporting on and, in most cases, butchering quite badly. This is probably a hold-over from a time when such publications were beyond easy reach of the average reader, but that has changed. Even if the article is behind a journal's pay-wall, pre-prints are usually available through sites such as arXiv. New media does a far better job of linking to sources and I thank them for it.

Re: Seriously, what’s up with old media not crediting bloggers?

#18

Post by nchlswu »

chrisacky wrote: post #10

I remember reading Chris Dixon's original post. I even popped the question to a friend... "Pop Quiz.. Name one game other than Angry Birds that Rovio had produced". He named three... all of them being Angry Birds update releases. lol. MG Siegler has had multiple rants about mainstream news outlets not attributing him for scoops and releases. http://tinyurl.com/mgsieglerrant "The Wallstreet Journal is Fucking Bullshit…

There was some interesting discussion about bloggers breaking news and attribution here: http://gigaom.com/2012/02/25/is-linking-just-polite-or-is-it... (and in related twitter discussions)

I'm not entirely familiar with 'old media' practices, but I always thought if two news outlets independently confirmed a news story they didn't acknowledge whoever broke the story first. Or if another news outlet breaks a story, they independently confirm and don't give attribution, since technically, they confirmed the story, so it's 'their news.' I've only heard a news source attribute another source when news is breaking in real time (i.e. X is reporting 7 are dead at the scene). Breaking a story != confirming or actually being a journalist's source.

In some cases, attribution is very important - like in the original post. However, I think a lot of 'new media' beef with old media practices is just a shift in ideology . Bloggers are closer to the action and transparency is more important. Old media is much more rigorous but is less transparent. I personally think the best approach is something in between the two.

Re: Seriously, what’s up with old media not crediting bloggers?

#20

Post by Kylekramer »

chrisacky wrote: post #10

I remember reading Chris Dixon's original post. I even popped the question to a friend... "Pop Quiz.. Name one game other than Angry Birds that Rovio had produced". He named three... all of them being Angry Birds update releases. lol. MG Siegler has had multiple rants about mainstream news outlets not attributing him for scoops and releases. http://tinyurl.com/mgsieglerrant "The Wallstreet Journal is Fucking Bullshit…

I think Felix Salmon's response was a good defense of the old media: http://felixsalmon.tumblr.com/post/18191067872/the-wall-stre...

New media is obsessed with credit and scoops. You can claim this is a moral thing, but I'd more likely attribute it to finance. New media makes all its money off clicks and views rather than subscriptions, so flash in the pan scoops are much more profitable for them than old media. It isn't incumbent on a journalist to indicate where all everything that contributed to an article came from (that is strictly in a "nice to have but not essential" category), just ensure all the information they provide is cited. The OP's article is a dicer situation of clear plagiarism, but I think new media has a dollar sign sized chip in its shoulder about linking and credit.

Post reply on HN