3 ms·
If it's ironic because expectations of how news blogs gather news and conduct business are much lower than that of traditional news organizations, then that's a
by aasarava 17y ago
If it's ironic because expectations of how news blogs gather news and conduct business are much lower than that of traditional news organizations, then that's actually quite troubling. I'd say it's completely fair to expect attribution when one's work is referenced -- even on blogs -- no?
The news paper medium may be dying, but that doesn't mean organizations using the new medium get to ignore the practices of good journalism and of just-plain-fair business.
- JacobAldridge 17y agoI'm all for fair attribution (ex-journalist here), and I'm not convinced that didn't happen in this case (though happy to accept it was borderline at best). But given the Gawker article sent more people to his story than any other single source, save one, AND that it was an article on the benefit of integrating generations and therefore technology, for the editor and then the writer to get peeved is ironic.
- omouse 17y agoBut given the Gawker article sent more people to his story than any other single source, save one As he says, more eyeballs != more money, so the attention means relatively nothing.
- citation_needed 17y agoOn the contrary, more page views do lead to higher ad revenues. If Gawker is the second highest referrer, that means it's actually contributing to the revenue The Post earns by way of its website.