Friday, December 19, 2008
News / Chicagoland Thank you sir, may I have another?
Posted by Whet Moser on 12.19.08 at 06:35 PM
Wired's Ryan Singel talked to Huffington Post co-founder Jonah Peretti, who called their decision to steal multiple concert previews a "mistaken editorial call" (you think?) and seems to think I'm an ingrate for being upset:
"You tease, you pull out a piece of it, and then you have a headline or link out," Peretti said. "Generally publishers are psyched to have a link."
[snip]
As for disgruntled publishers, Peretti seems genuinely perplexed and says The Huffington Post links should be good for them — and suggests that upset editors get in touch and build relationships with Huffington Post editors.
[Despite the fact that Peretti took the time to do damage control with Wired, no one from the Huffington Post has yet responded to my request that they remove our content, a request I submitted yesterday.]
But clearly, it's my fault. I'm sorry I got so disgruntled when they used our content without permission. In the future, I will trust Jonah Peretti to do with our content what he thinks is good for us.
I am psyched! Let's build a relationship!
Update: Someone at HuffPo just called, which is to their credit. Unfortunately, after reading Peretti's quotes, I'm seeing red right now and will have to wait awhile to talk to anyone.
Comments (12)
Showing 1-12 of 12
Well, sure, publishers would be psyched to have a *link*; but an entire story simply copied in its entirety -- or entirety, except for the byline! -- is another matter.
like
dislike
It must be hard for Peretti to seem *genuinely* perplexed about your reaction when it's very similar to the reactions of other disgruntled editors and writers who have commented on your blog since you discovered this practice. HuffPo's got a lot of relationship building to do. And, seriously, the extent to which they were engaging in straight jacking other people's work makes it hard for me to swallow the "mistaken editorial call" argument. It's more of a mistaken editorial POLICY at this point.
And not just amount but consistency. They did it regularly for over a month before I threw my temper tantrum. Content's still up, too. Just got a call from them. Should call back but I'm too angry to talk about it.
And what about upset writers? It was especially charming to learn one of my blurbs was lifted on the very same day I got the news I was laid off. It's nice to know people like my work enough to steal it, but that doesn't help me pay for the dental work I need or feed my domineering cat.
I noticed that one of your blurbs was swiped; that's what really pushed me over the edge from being in a snit to bright-red livid for the past 36 hours.
i can't believe, at this point, that they even bothered to call. i feel we should just lump them into the same category as the new 21st century politician...like say, bush or blago: we're only innocent because we say we are. the evidence says otherwise but who cares about that? this is bullshit, whet. don't let them tell you different.
Oh but Jennifer, haven't you heard? Information needs to be "free." Spiritually free, yes. I do agree with that. I am all in favor of fucking LIBRARIES. "Free" in the sense that content providers don't have the right to living wages, that we should just all work for the love of it and accept our drafty garretts and let their ad buyers reap all the profits, if any? That appears to be the Huffpo model, which, IMO, utterly discredits them as "progressives."
Thanks, Whet. I do have sympathy for people who are driven into becoming scabs by poverty; a lot of them have no choice. I REALLY resent someone making me into one without even letting me know.
Not to take a running jump into a minefield, here, but I'm kind of perplexed, myself, by how "old media" this complaint is. Frankly, the practice of taking a few sentences out of a larger piece of writing and using it as a teaser, followed directly by a link, is about as commonplace on the web as are LOLcats. I'm confused as to where the shock is coming from. Most large blogs do this. Many aggregators do it. And, as a blogger (unpaid as I may be), I *would* in fact be thrilled to have a site with HuffPo's traffic link to one of my or my co-bloggers' posts. When did exposure become a bad thing? I don't see how it's "ripping off the article" if only a sample of the original content is present, and used specifically for the purpose of directing readers to the site of origin. Ok, don't throw rocks at me now, please. :-P
skrrr -- I stand corrected. I only glanced before, and didn't realize that these were wholesale ripoffs. Forgive my misfire; I've seen too many instances of folks whining about legitimate teaser-sampling, and this touched off a nerve. I should have given Mr. Moser more credit.
