Desperately Seeking A Happy Medium
You know, a wise man once told me that if you make it really easy for someone to do something they feel compelled to do, then they'll probably do it -- despite all warnings to the contrary. Put a warm cookie in front of a child and tell them it will burn their mouth, and the kid will still grab and chomp. Put a cocktail in front of an alcoholic in distress and he'll probably drink it. Make it incredibly easy for someone to siphon your work for a few extra pageviews despite all conventional mores, and damn it, they'll be slapping Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V faster than you can get the words "fair use" out of your mouth.
Such is the dilemma facing Washington Post reporter Ian Shapira, after Gawker writer Hamilton Nolan "stole" (Shapira's editor's word, not mine) from his profile of Washingtonian business consultant Anne Loehr -- admittedly a story ripe for the picking. Shapira's reaction is balanced; he talks to Nolan about his process and states that despite the lifting of numerous parts of his story in detail, he was still "flattered" by the added publicity.
Shapira does comes off a little whiny and holier-than-thou at times, especially when writing about the "hours" he spent in reporting the piece -- but that's a stance he's certainly entitled to. He also readily admits that he used his own promotional tactics in concert with the Gawker bump to push the story to more readers. For the most part, Shapira's public complaint is handled with self-deprecation and understanding that it's hard out there for a legitimate blogger, man. Here's the main sticking point:
Even if I owe Nolan for a significant uptick in traffic, are those extra eyeballs helping The Post's bottom line?
For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that "Ian Shapira, the writer" and "Ian Shapira, the Washington Post employee" are not two separate entities -- even though they most certainly are. (If Shapira works at WaPo for the rest of his life, then I'll gladly eat my words.) Assuming that, then the answer is no -- Gawker's links, regardless of their ability to point people back to the original story, will likely have little to no effect on advertising sales, subscription rates, or the public's perception of the Washington Post, despite what the economic optimist in all of us would like to think. For all the copy that Gawker lifts from the Post with crappy attribution, there's a hundred blogs doing the same to Gawker and every other professional blog, without a link or attribution.
Oh, and if the Post really wants to go down this road, they should take a look at some of their archives to make sure that they cited other professional blogs appropriately before they start really chucking stones. Whether they like it or not, the Washington Post has bigger issues on its hands than whether or not a third-party trips all over itself to make damn sure that every single one of its viewers clicks through to one story on washingtonpost.com.
That said, is it completely and utterly unethical on the part of Gawker to lift most of a reporter's story? Absolutely. (To his credit, Gawker boss Nick Denton called Nolan's post "certainly more of an excerpt than we'd normally indulge in". Gee, don't go too far out on that limb, dude.) Gawker's actions in this case do nothing but provide fodder to those who feel that copyright law needs to be updated to lock down content with monetary restrictions -- a situation that would be pretty bad for most of the professional bloggers we know.
So what's the solution? Shapira, for his part, argues for that utmost journalistic ideal -- a shiny, happy internet where everyone shares tactfully and makes money in concert:
I still want a fluid blogosphere, but one where aggregators -- newspapers included -- are more transparent about whom they're heavily excerpting. They should mention the original source immediately. And if bloggers want to excerpt at length, a fee would be the nice, ethical gesture.
Best of luck with that one. Now who out there has a legitimate idea?