

How Gawker Ripped Off My Newspaper Story - fallentimes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/31/AR2009073102476_pf.html

======
swilliams
Ok, for the sake of discussion, say newspapers are dead and gone in 5 years.
What happens to places like gawker? Will they go out and do their own
investigating? Certain blogs have some "real" sources, but they seem to rely
more on traditional media for the base story.

As far as I know, the whole nature of blogs like them are to take an existing
story and put their own spin on it. I enjoy various blogs (even some in the
gawker stable), but if and when newspaper die off, what will they do for
content?

~~~
mtw
blogs like engadget or niche blogs written by experts already do original
reporting (going to conferences, taking pictures, etc.) They'll be more of
them when the Post or the NYT won't be there.

~~~
varjag
Ah, gadgetry and latest Agile scoop is fine and fun, but would your average
blogger do reporting when next Chechnya flares up, or do time-consuming and
hazardous research on mafia connections in his southern-Italian hometown?

Reporting of this kind takes time, equipment, connections, travel, bribes -
which all translates to money that have to appear somehow.

~~~
swilliams
Yeah, this is what I'm talking about. Blogs work very well for things that you
can glean from Press Releases, conferences, and others, hence Engadget and
Gizmodo work well.

But local news or even sports requires a lot of elbow grease and footwork. One
of my favorite sports blogs is Deadspin. But the only time I can remember them
digging for a story is when they were almost able to break the Manny Ramirez
steroid story, but their evidence ended up pointed to an average guy who
happened to be named Manny Ramirez (not the baseball player).
[http://deadspin.com/5244230/the-case-of-manny-not-being-
mann...](http://deadspin.com/5244230/the-case-of-manny-not-being-manny)

They've been making small inroads into this kind of journalism, but it is far
and away the minority.

------
jlangenauer
I think it's a reasonable rant. Look at it this way: which one - the WP
reporter, or Gawker - has created more value? Which one has added (slightly,
as in all these things) more to the sum total of human knowledge?

Perhaps economics of the former (Washington Post) model is on its way out. But
if it is, might we all not be the poorer for it?

~~~
fallentimes
The new models could look a lot like Politico:

[http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/08/wolff200...](http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/08/wolff200908?printable=true&currentPage=all)

~~~
alanthonyc
"If Google wanted to own Washington coverage, well, all it would have to do is
take the six or seven journalists who are really producing stuff— _remember,
reporters don’t make shit_ —and put them in one place and overnight Google
would own Washington...Well, why couldn’t we do that?"

This concept would apply to other parts of the newspaper business. Craigslist
did it to classified ads, ESPN to sports, now Politico with politics. I'm sure
others will come out over time as well.

------
bkovitz
Washington Post pays for all the time and hard work to put together a real
story. Gawker reduces it to snark, collects the ad money.

This is a problem. Real journalism is in big economic trouble.

If there were ever an opportunity for some entrepreneurial problem-solving,
this is it.

<http://paulgraham.com/good.html>

~~~
aristus
Well, the newspaper has been in trouble for a lot longer than the internet has
been mainstream. There was a huge wave of consolidation in the 70s and 80s,
remember. Also remember that most newspaper revenue used to come from
classifieds. More importantly, most of the _readers_ came for things other
than hard news: sports, stock tickers, astrology, comics, etc.

It real sucks to say this so bluntly, as my wife and many friends are
journalists, but "real" journalism is, and always has been, a kind of prestige
side-show -- like Honda's racing team or Microsoft Research.

~~~
bkovitz
I was not aware that classified ads used to be the main source of revenue. I
thought that most of the 20th century, paid advertising (the kind with
graphics) was the main source. I'm curious. Do you know something I could read
to find out more about this?

Regardless, as you say, the solid news was never the main draw. It looks like
journalism has been using a weird, indirect revenue model since long before
the "new economy".

~~~
adw
We (Timetric, startup I've cofounded) got data on this from the Newspaper
Association of America:

[http://byline.timetric.com/2009/06/07/classified-
information...](http://byline.timetric.com/2009/06/07/classified-information-
why-newsprint-doesnt-pay-in-the-usa/)

------
omouse
This is an opportunity for the Washington Post actually. They can cut out the
middleman (Gawker) and supply a slim version of the same story. This would let
them cover multiple "angles" and recoup their expenses by having all the ad
revenue coming to a Washington Post-owned publisher.

~~~
dtf
This is a fantastic point. "Lite" news is very popular - it's just a factor of
attention span and the time people have to read an article. I guess that many
of the people who read the Gawker story would not have been willing to invest
the time to read the original article in depth. What value has Gawker added?
They've sensationalized it slightly, and summarized the juicy bits. The
originator of the story is actually in a perfect position to do the same and
appeal to a different market - if they can stomach it.

------
fallentimes
I used the title tag (How Gawker Ripped Off My Newspaper Story) instead of the
actual title (The Death of Journalism [Gawker Edition]) as I found the latter
to be too sensationalistic.

~~~
alaskamiller
I submitted this earlier (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=736887>) with
the title Death of Journalism because I felt it was what he wanted. I also
submitted the multipart article since I want the ad revenue accounted for.

~~~
fallentimes
Oh sorry - I didn't see it.

I'm surprised the original headline didn't receive more votes.

~~~
alaskamiller
Naw, it's fine, as long as the article gets read.

------
tarkin2
The weakest and central part of the article:

"More readers are better than fewer, of course. But those referring links --
while essential to our current business model -- aren't doing much,
ultimately, to stop our potential slide into layoffs and further contraction."

Not financially helping--arguable in itself--the Washington post is not equal
to financially hindering it.

"Worse, some media experts believe that Gawker and its ilk, with their
relatively low overhead, might be depressing online ad revenue across the
board. That makes it harder for news-gathering operations to recoup their
expenses."

This is simply conjecture--a shame since this is the crux of his argument. I
could equally say Gawker may be giving the WP article more page hits
(something he admits), and thus revenue, and certainly more general public
exposure. And in return for this service, Gawker gets ad revenue itself.

After these two weak points he then goes on to ask how we can save newspapers
from online blogs and non-newspaper news sites, without proving these are
hindering newspapers.

This whole argument seems very similar to the music industry's argument that
online piracy is destroying music. Studies have shown, however, that piracy
can actually increase music sales. And so it's not clear cut that blogging and
non-newspaper news sites are hindering traditional newspapers.

We need to prove blogs and non-newspaper new sites are causing newspapers'
decline before moving on to ask how we should stop these menaces to
traditional newspapers.

------
kingkawn
Bottomless contempt for the genuine concern from people about how the internet
will affect their livelihood is not the best way to encourage support and
appreciation for the value that tech (and its creators) can generate.

After hundreds of articles posted here about old media struggling, followed by
thousands of comments deriding the old for not realizing how old and lame they
are, its time to think of ways to ease this transition rather than being
contemptuous as it guts another industry.

------
sauce71
It is a reason for concern the prospect of losing real journalism. I have
stopped using adblockers. Please stop linking to the print version of
articles.

------
chanux
Isn't that gawker media & other similar blogs always do (more or less)?

------
jaggs
To say that this is a lame piece is an understatement. He complains that
although Gawker linked to his piece twice or more times, and drove significant
traffic to his article, that somehow the online world is driving newspapers to
the wall. He complains that the extra traffic gave The Post no extra revenue?
Oh c'mon, get real, whose fault is that? The real kicker is the fact that
newspapers and the MSN in general are all engaged in a constant war to steal
each others content and make it their own, they've been doing it for decades.
And that's a fact. This article is pathetic, and really shows the desperate
state of the MSM.

------
JacobAldridge
Washington Post journalist writes about a coach who helps integrate younger
people and their tech expectations into the workplace.

Gawker writes about it.

Journalist (well, Editor first) gets peeved, and writes a massive rant at
Gawker and technology in his profession.

If I were to tweet this, it would be #irony.

~~~
aasarava
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
I'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
_But 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
On 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.

