One of the advantages bloggers have over traditional journalists is speed of publication – they can put material on their blogs faster than newspapers can print articles and editorials. But posting too quickly can sacrifice accuracy - and the need for speed can become a disadvantage.
Traditional journalists are all too familiar with the need to balance speed with accuracy. After all, established news publications’ profitability lies in the attention-grabbing ability of their material. Scooping a breaking story is more likely to grab readers’ attention than a well-researched article that comes out the next day.
But as every professional journalist knows, it’s just as important, probably even more so, to ensure that what gets published is factually true and objective. Otherwise, the publisher is open to charges of libel and misrepresentation of facts - and even if the case never makes it to court, the ensuing damage to the credibility of the publisher can undermine its ability to sell a single issue in the future.
Last week, ZDNet, an online provider of news and documents, retracted a story posted by one of its bloggers stating that Yahoo! had provided the Iranian government with names and E-mail addresses of Iranian Yahoo! users during the election protests. The post went live before Yahoo! responded-and Yahoo! denied the charges. ZDNet admitted in its retraction that the post was based on information from a single source “who had a clear agenda” and that it had never contacted Yahoo! for verification of the alleged facts or a response to the charges made in the blog post.
As ZDNet posted in its retraction, “Blog networks still need to follow Journalism 101.”
Even a solitary blogger, unconnected to any news organization, needs to follow Journalism 101 and verify the objectivity and accuracy of its sources - and not simply post information based solely on a single source. It’s not hard to extrapolate that the deeper pockets of established news organizations give them added protection from published inaccuracy liability that bloggers just don’t have access to.
So make sure all your facts are correct before you publish - and give the other side a chance to respond before you put a single word online. If you break a false story, that story could break you.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Think Before You Link!
It’s easy to connect one online document to another by means of a hyperlink. But to hyperlink your documents to someone else’s without permission, not to mention failure to properly attribute your sources or give credit to the authors, is unethical and quite possibly, illegal.
In 2008, GateHouse Media sued Boston.com, a subsidiary of The New York Times Co., for putting hyperlinks in its online documents directly to GateHouse articles and posting the headlines and first sentences of the articles on its own website. GateHouse claimed that The New York Times Co. was infringing on its copyrights and allowing users to bypass its homepage ads by means of this deep linking, or linking to a page on a website other than the homepage. A number of other legal cases have been filed concerning the legal acceptability of hyperlinking underlying content without owner permission.
The GateHouse case was settled before the courts had the opportunity to rule on the legal acceptability of hyperlinking. As of this writing in the United States, hyperlinking - including deep linking - is considered permissible under the “fair use” doctrine, which allows copyrighted works or portions thereof to be used for limited purpose without permission of its owners.
“Fair use” is generally determined based on the purpose and character of the user intent (commercial or non-profit), the nature of the work, the proportional amount of the work used in relation to the work as a whole, and the effect of the use of the work on its intended market or value.
However, in the United States, linking to content that is illegal or infringes against the intellectual property rights of others can be legally problematic. In other jurisdictions outside the United States, hyperlinking without permission and failure to attribute or properly credit the owners does constitute copyright infringement. And copyright infringement can result in huge damage awards against the infringers - both within and outside the United States.
As of this writing, the potential of infringing hyperlinks has not come up in the context of blogs. Simply stated, established news organizations have much deeper pockets than bloggers. Therefore, one can logically conclude that the financial and downstream moral effects of a copyright infringement award against a blogger can be potentially devastating, to the point of killing the blog. And that’s not all: infringers can also be enjoined against using the linked material and required to remove the links, in which case they would have been better off, financially and otherwise, scrapping the link in the first place.
The legal and ethical principles should be clear: Always get the permission of the owner of source material before using it in your blog; always correctly attribute that material or properly credit its creators; and always make sure that the material you’re linking to is infringement-free. If you don’t own it, linking to it is like helping yourself to someone else’s work without paying for it - and that’s stealing. Forearmed is forewarned and not everything goes…even online.
In 2008, GateHouse Media sued Boston.com, a subsidiary of The New York Times Co., for putting hyperlinks in its online documents directly to GateHouse articles and posting the headlines and first sentences of the articles on its own website. GateHouse claimed that The New York Times Co. was infringing on its copyrights and allowing users to bypass its homepage ads by means of this deep linking, or linking to a page on a website other than the homepage. A number of other legal cases have been filed concerning the legal acceptability of hyperlinking underlying content without owner permission.
The GateHouse case was settled before the courts had the opportunity to rule on the legal acceptability of hyperlinking. As of this writing in the United States, hyperlinking - including deep linking - is considered permissible under the “fair use” doctrine, which allows copyrighted works or portions thereof to be used for limited purpose without permission of its owners.
“Fair use” is generally determined based on the purpose and character of the user intent (commercial or non-profit), the nature of the work, the proportional amount of the work used in relation to the work as a whole, and the effect of the use of the work on its intended market or value.
However, in the United States, linking to content that is illegal or infringes against the intellectual property rights of others can be legally problematic. In other jurisdictions outside the United States, hyperlinking without permission and failure to attribute or properly credit the owners does constitute copyright infringement. And copyright infringement can result in huge damage awards against the infringers - both within and outside the United States.
As of this writing, the potential of infringing hyperlinks has not come up in the context of blogs. Simply stated, established news organizations have much deeper pockets than bloggers. Therefore, one can logically conclude that the financial and downstream moral effects of a copyright infringement award against a blogger can be potentially devastating, to the point of killing the blog. And that’s not all: infringers can also be enjoined against using the linked material and required to remove the links, in which case they would have been better off, financially and otherwise, scrapping the link in the first place.
The legal and ethical principles should be clear: Always get the permission of the owner of source material before using it in your blog; always correctly attribute that material or properly credit its creators; and always make sure that the material you’re linking to is infringement-free. If you don’t own it, linking to it is like helping yourself to someone else’s work without paying for it - and that’s stealing. Forearmed is forewarned and not everything goes…even online.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Cloak and Blogger
It’s been a long-accepted truism that anything posted online is fair game for anyone else to comment on or respond to. And if it’s posted in a blog, it may also be fair game for a subpoena.
Earlier this month, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Louis Locascio ruled that for purposes of “shield law protection,” bloggers don’t count as journalists because “they are, many times, doing little more than shouting from atop a digital soapbox." So, in New Jersey at least, bloggers facing subpoenas for the identities of their “off the record” information can’t get away with refusing to name their sources.
“Shield laws,” which are on the books in thirty-six states and the District of Columbia, are state laws that protect the confidentiality of journalistic sources. (As of this posting, there is no federal provision for shield law protection.) Many of our most compelling news stories are attributed to “unnamed sources,” or sources who speak to journalists under a guarantee of anonymity. Without it, they often face loss of employment, social ostracism, and even threats of violence against themselves and their loved ones.
But even journalists who work for established news organizations at times face contempt of court, obstruction of justice, and other criminal charges for refusing to identify their sources. Former New York Times reporter and Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller, who refused to identify sources for stories (which she didn’t write) outing CIA operative Valerie Plame, couldn’t get away with confidentiality of source claims and spent 85 days in jail for contempt of court in 2005.
If an established news organization masthead and professional honors can’t protect you from a jail sentence, the lack of them definitely won’t keep you from facing the music. And your name will be the one in a news article-or a blog.
So if you’d rather have something to blog about besides the inside of a jail cell or solid orange vs. striped uniforms, don’t post anything that you aren’t prepared to testify about in court-including “naming names.”
Update: As of December 10, 2009, a federal shield law, The Free Flow of Information Act, has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is pending in the full Senate and must then be reconciled with a different version passed in the House of Representatives.
Earlier this month, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Louis Locascio ruled that for purposes of “shield law protection,” bloggers don’t count as journalists because “they are, many times, doing little more than shouting from atop a digital soapbox." So, in New Jersey at least, bloggers facing subpoenas for the identities of their “off the record” information can’t get away with refusing to name their sources.
“Shield laws,” which are on the books in thirty-six states and the District of Columbia, are state laws that protect the confidentiality of journalistic sources. (As of this posting, there is no federal provision for shield law protection.) Many of our most compelling news stories are attributed to “unnamed sources,” or sources who speak to journalists under a guarantee of anonymity. Without it, they often face loss of employment, social ostracism, and even threats of violence against themselves and their loved ones.
But even journalists who work for established news organizations at times face contempt of court, obstruction of justice, and other criminal charges for refusing to identify their sources. Former New York Times reporter and Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller, who refused to identify sources for stories (which she didn’t write) outing CIA operative Valerie Plame, couldn’t get away with confidentiality of source claims and spent 85 days in jail for contempt of court in 2005.
If an established news organization masthead and professional honors can’t protect you from a jail sentence, the lack of them definitely won’t keep you from facing the music. And your name will be the one in a news article-or a blog.
So if you’d rather have something to blog about besides the inside of a jail cell or solid orange vs. striped uniforms, don’t post anything that you aren’t prepared to testify about in court-including “naming names.”
Update: As of December 10, 2009, a federal shield law, The Free Flow of Information Act, has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is pending in the full Senate and must then be reconciled with a different version passed in the House of Representatives.
Keeping the FTC Away: Blog Endorsements
There are three rules that everyone seems to agree about regarding blogs: One, anything on a blog is fair game for responses from everyone else who sees it. Two, a blogger who wants to blog about his or her employer does so at risk of his or her job. And three, there are no other rules.
But the Federal Trade Commission is considering some new ones for those who endorse products and services in their blogs.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is one of the many government agencies in the United States that protect the public from harmful business practices such as false and deceptive advertising. Among its requirements is one that states that all publishers of articles and testimonials must disclose any connections that they or their writers have to the manufacturers and marketers of goods and services they discuss. The rule currently applies to newspapers, magazines, and other traditional or mainstream media.
If the FTC implements a controversial proposal currently under consideration, bloggers would also be required to disclose such connections. It can then get out of hand to such a point that anyone who chooses to write casually, “I like iPhones and think everyone should get one” in his own blog would have to mention any shares of stock he owns in Apple, any special discount or rebate he received from Apple to buy an iPhone, or any relationship he has to Steve Jobs.
The FTC would take this a step further and compel bloggers to disclose any free review copies they have received. This is a requirement that newspapers, magazines, and other media are not subject to. So if Apple gave a blogger a free iPhone, that blogger would have to disclose that information, whereas The New York Times and Wired magazine would not.
So with all of this compounded, now the case could be made that bloggers don’t count as journalists. The assumption can then be that they’re writing for fun, they don’t get paid, they aren’t working for media outlets, and their posts are usually seen by only a small number of people at most. But given that as of August, 2008, blogs received more than 77 million unique visitors in the United States according to Technorati, the blog-tracking website, it’s clear that blogging has serious potential to really spread the word about a product or service and as an after-effect, make or break reputations. So the FTC has a point about wanting to keep the blogosphere neutral, or at least frank, about products and services discussed within its purview by way of protecting consumers.
In conclusion, when you buy your next Mac, if you choose to blog about it, you need to protect yourself by mentioning any connection you have to its manufacturer or marketers. Otherwise, one bad Apple could damage the whole barrel of blogs.
But the Federal Trade Commission is considering some new ones for those who endorse products and services in their blogs.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is one of the many government agencies in the United States that protect the public from harmful business practices such as false and deceptive advertising. Among its requirements is one that states that all publishers of articles and testimonials must disclose any connections that they or their writers have to the manufacturers and marketers of goods and services they discuss. The rule currently applies to newspapers, magazines, and other traditional or mainstream media.
If the FTC implements a controversial proposal currently under consideration, bloggers would also be required to disclose such connections. It can then get out of hand to such a point that anyone who chooses to write casually, “I like iPhones and think everyone should get one” in his own blog would have to mention any shares of stock he owns in Apple, any special discount or rebate he received from Apple to buy an iPhone, or any relationship he has to Steve Jobs.
The FTC would take this a step further and compel bloggers to disclose any free review copies they have received. This is a requirement that newspapers, magazines, and other media are not subject to. So if Apple gave a blogger a free iPhone, that blogger would have to disclose that information, whereas The New York Times and Wired magazine would not.
So with all of this compounded, now the case could be made that bloggers don’t count as journalists. The assumption can then be that they’re writing for fun, they don’t get paid, they aren’t working for media outlets, and their posts are usually seen by only a small number of people at most. But given that as of August, 2008, blogs received more than 77 million unique visitors in the United States according to Technorati, the blog-tracking website, it’s clear that blogging has serious potential to really spread the word about a product or service and as an after-effect, make or break reputations. So the FTC has a point about wanting to keep the blogosphere neutral, or at least frank, about products and services discussed within its purview by way of protecting consumers.
In conclusion, when you buy your next Mac, if you choose to blog about it, you need to protect yourself by mentioning any connection you have to its manufacturer or marketers. Otherwise, one bad Apple could damage the whole barrel of blogs.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
The New Phenomenon: Writer's Blog
Do most of your best blog ideas come when you’re away from your computer? Do you often find that they have slid out of your mind just in the short time it takes you to open your web browser and log on?
If so, you can take momentary heart in the fact that many other scribes of all shapes and sizes also suffer from the phenomenon of “writer’s block.” But if you want your readers to keep tuning in, you can’t afford to stay blocked. Your blog needs to be refreshed regularly with new material.
“Writer’s block” often results from two fears - fear of taking risks and fear of criticism - including our own.
When we’re not willing to accept the possibility of failure, we try very hard to get it right the first time. This often includes playing it safe, namely, sticking to methods and opinions that are “tried and true” – even though they’re no longer seen as “original” or “intriguing.” And we also inhibit ourselves with thin skins. It’s hard to ignore snarky criticism - especially when it comes from those who are considered “authorities.” And all we have to do to face our worst critics is to look in a mirror at our own reflections.
As a blogger, you especially need to be able to move past writer’s block and write. Forget about being perfect, correct, or eloquent - you just need to be timely. Your blog is only as attention-getting and earth-shifting as its most recent post. Respond to a comment, write about the funny thing that happened to you while switching on your computer, or type as you think - the important thing is to get something down. You are not going to be reviewed by Dorothy Parker or Roger Ebert.
And don’t try to be your own editor. It’s hard to be objective about your own writing. Wait until you finish a first draft before you go back and start looking for those red zigzags under misspelled words, incorrect punctuation, weird spacing gaps, and capital letters. Save fact-checking and rephrasing until you have those errors corrected.
But whatever you do, don’t wait. Get going and write. The only person whose permission you need is you.
If so, you can take momentary heart in the fact that many other scribes of all shapes and sizes also suffer from the phenomenon of “writer’s block.” But if you want your readers to keep tuning in, you can’t afford to stay blocked. Your blog needs to be refreshed regularly with new material.
“Writer’s block” often results from two fears - fear of taking risks and fear of criticism - including our own.
When we’re not willing to accept the possibility of failure, we try very hard to get it right the first time. This often includes playing it safe, namely, sticking to methods and opinions that are “tried and true” – even though they’re no longer seen as “original” or “intriguing.” And we also inhibit ourselves with thin skins. It’s hard to ignore snarky criticism - especially when it comes from those who are considered “authorities.” And all we have to do to face our worst critics is to look in a mirror at our own reflections.
As a blogger, you especially need to be able to move past writer’s block and write. Forget about being perfect, correct, or eloquent - you just need to be timely. Your blog is only as attention-getting and earth-shifting as its most recent post. Respond to a comment, write about the funny thing that happened to you while switching on your computer, or type as you think - the important thing is to get something down. You are not going to be reviewed by Dorothy Parker or Roger Ebert.
And don’t try to be your own editor. It’s hard to be objective about your own writing. Wait until you finish a first draft before you go back and start looking for those red zigzags under misspelled words, incorrect punctuation, weird spacing gaps, and capital letters. Save fact-checking and rephrasing until you have those errors corrected.
But whatever you do, don’t wait. Get going and write. The only person whose permission you need is you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)