NYT quoting MeFi without attribution May 25, 2006 8:02 AM Subscribe
If anyone is interested, The New York Times is quoting Metafilter without attribution. They've got a story about young employees and blogging about work, and they've lifted some of Jessa Werner's comments in the FPP about her situation. Article here (it's on the second page).
Er, no, they're quoting Jessa Werner with attribution. They're under no obligation to say where she made those comments.
posted by jack_mo at 8:04 AM on May 25, 2006
posted by jack_mo at 8:04 AM on May 25, 2006
Oop, should've previewed - seriously, that's not 'shoddy journalism' by any stretch of the imagination. Metafilter isn't the source in the sense you're using it.
If I was writing that piece, I'd've said 'on MetaFilter, a community weblog' rather than, 'on another website', but I wouldn't be surprised or annoyed if a sub-editor removed the reference as irrelevant.
posted by jack_mo at 8:12 AM on May 25, 2006
If I was writing that piece, I'd've said 'on MetaFilter, a community weblog' rather than, 'on another website', but I wouldn't be surprised or annoyed if a sub-editor removed the reference as irrelevant.
posted by jack_mo at 8:12 AM on May 25, 2006
I'm always reading articles in newspapers a week after I see it on Metafilter. Newspapers are slow and the New York Times knows that sites like Metafilter are putting them out of business... but still, we link to them, the least they could do is return the favour... but journalists don't know the first thing about hyper-text linking.
posted by Hanover Phist at 8:16 AM on May 25, 2006
posted by Hanover Phist at 8:16 AM on May 25, 2006
Metafilter isn't the source in the sense you're using it.
Exactly. They probably should have mentioned the website's name but there's no reason they had to. As long as they are her words and quoted accurately, it's kosher.
sites like Metafilter are putting them out of business
If CNN and the NYT went out of business, where oh where would you get all your newsfilter links from?
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:24 AM on May 25, 2006
Exactly. They probably should have mentioned the website's name but there's no reason they had to. As long as they are her words and quoted accurately, it's kosher.
sites like Metafilter are putting them out of business
If CNN and the NYT went out of business, where oh where would you get all your newsfilter links from?
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:24 AM on May 25, 2006
but journalists don't know the first thing about hyper-text linking
Really? I thought they had style guides to help them (example 1, example 2, example 3, etc.). Are the editors at NYT not consistent in the application of said rules?
posted by Mr. Six at 8:41 AM on May 25, 2006
Really? I thought they had style guides to help them (example 1, example 2, example 3, etc.). Are the editors at NYT not consistent in the application of said rules?
posted by Mr. Six at 8:41 AM on May 25, 2006
I'm always reading articles in newspapers a week after I see it on Metafilter.
I'm always writing articles in newspapers a week after I see it on MetaFilter.
Well, not always, but once or twice I have written stuff based on threads here, or been given a new perspective on something I'm in the middle of writing by comments in threads. And if I pitched a piece on weblogs and the workplace (which I will, the millisecond I hear that another person in Scotland gets fired for weblogging), it would be shoddy journalism if I didn't search the archives here.
journalists don't know the first thing about hyper-text linking.
How exactly does one link from newsprint to the web?
posted by jack_mo at 8:52 AM on May 25, 2006
I'm always writing articles in newspapers a week after I see it on MetaFilter.
Well, not always, but once or twice I have written stuff based on threads here, or been given a new perspective on something I'm in the middle of writing by comments in threads. And if I pitched a piece on weblogs and the workplace (which I will, the millisecond I hear that another person in Scotland gets fired for weblogging), it would be shoddy journalism if I didn't search the archives here.
journalists don't know the first thing about hyper-text linking.
How exactly does one link from newsprint to the web?
posted by jack_mo at 8:52 AM on May 25, 2006
I'm fine with backing off "shoddy journalism". And again, I know story ideas don't sprout fully formed out of one's head as a writer or creative person. I suppose, upon reflection, I'd even say I don't care if the world at large is unaware of Metafilter, so it's not a problem to go unattributed. Maybe I'll just mark this as amusing that I read the article this morning and knew the unnamed location where the content was gleaned. I think probably my sense of irritation may also come from the fine line journalism like this comes between reporting some facts and attempting to draw a mild conclusion ("there's this thing where young people write on the Web! Then they get fired!"). I think we live in rapidly-evolving times with regards to technology and its effect on society; attempts like this, however necessary, to nail some phenomenon down often leave me thinking "that's inaccurate" in some vaguely uncomfortable way.
posted by Slothrop at 8:54 AM on May 25, 2006
posted by Slothrop at 8:54 AM on May 25, 2006
CunningLinguist writes "where oh where would you get all your newsfilter links from"
The CBC?
posted by Mitheral at 8:54 AM on May 25, 2006
The CBC?
posted by Mitheral at 8:54 AM on May 25, 2006
I thought the New York Times style guide states that you're not to mention the misspellings and grammar mistakes of subjects in articles, nor to quote them in dialect. Guess that one got thrown out the window for Jessa.
posted by Captaintripps at 9:02 AM on May 25, 2006
posted by Captaintripps at 9:02 AM on May 25, 2006
If CNN and the NYT went out of business, where oh where would you get all your newsfilter links from?
Exactly.
posted by Hanover Phist at 9:06 AM on May 25, 2006
Exactly.
posted by Hanover Phist at 9:06 AM on May 25, 2006
The New York Times has an ombudsman to whom editorial complaints and concerns could be directed.
posted by Mr. Six at 9:06 AM on May 25, 2006
posted by Mr. Six at 9:06 AM on May 25, 2006
I think we live in rapidly-evolving times with regards to technology and its effect on society; attempts like this, however necessary, to nail some phenomenon down often leave me thinking "that's inaccurate" in some vaguely uncomfortable way.
Oh, for sure. But journalists are hemmed into provoking that feeling in people like MetaFilter readers, because writing for a general audience and the constraints of a word count mean they have to dumb down or gloss over. Not to mention having to wait years sometimes before editors will let them write about an interesting online phenomenon in publications for a more general audience (and of course they then complain that you should've written about it for them... years ago!).
posted by jack_mo at 9:12 AM on May 25, 2006
Oh, for sure. But journalists are hemmed into provoking that feeling in people like MetaFilter readers, because writing for a general audience and the constraints of a word count mean they have to dumb down or gloss over. Not to mention having to wait years sometimes before editors will let them write about an interesting online phenomenon in publications for a more general audience (and of course they then complain that you should've written about it for them... years ago!).
posted by jack_mo at 9:12 AM on May 25, 2006
Reading the FPP, I came away thinking that Jessa couldn't spell for beans and that golly, she shore was purty!
Trust that stupid ol' MSM to once again only get half of the story!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:05 AM on May 25, 2006
Trust that stupid ol' MSM to once again only get half of the story!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:05 AM on May 25, 2006
jack_mo, the article you linked to in the Scotsman was pretty interesting! Has it been a FPP? Also, let us know if/when you do your piece on this!
posted by Slothrop at 10:27 AM on May 25, 2006
posted by Slothrop at 10:27 AM on May 25, 2006
How exactly does one link from newsprint to the web?
I think it involves Myst-style linking books. Or newspapers.
posted by oaf at 6:44 PM on May 25, 2006
I think it involves Myst-style linking books. Or newspapers.
posted by oaf at 6:44 PM on May 25, 2006
I'm always reading articles in newspapers a week after I see it on Metafilter.
I'm always writing articles in newspapers a week after I see it on MetaFilter.
And then we see it posted as a one-link FPP to MeFi.
And then we see it posted as a one-link bitchfest in MeTa.
And so the circle of life is completed.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:57 PM on May 25, 2006
I'm always writing articles in newspapers a week after I see it on MetaFilter.
And then we see it posted as a one-link FPP to MeFi.
And then we see it posted as a one-link bitchfest in MeTa.
And so the circle of life is completed.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:57 PM on May 25, 2006
Seriously, no offense to to good people at the Times, but: it's Thursday fucking Styles. (Let's just say that, at any other paper, this is where the bloody Jumble and Kidz Korner would be published.) It's not exactly the Metro desk or A1. And the article starts by talking about interns and intern season—and THEN goes on to discuss non-interns and employees and roman-a-clef that were never blogs at all. Bizarrest deviation from conceit EVER. Don't even bother to take it seriously for a second.
And yes it's RIDICULOUS that they don't tell the reader where one might read these comments of hers, but that really does smell like an editor's work, as jack_mo said.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 8:24 PM on May 25, 2006
And yes it's RIDICULOUS that they don't tell the reader where one might read these comments of hers, but that really does smell like an editor's work, as jack_mo said.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 8:24 PM on May 25, 2006
the New York Times knows that sites like Metafilter are putting them out of business
*snickers*
posted by quonsar at 4:06 AM on May 26, 2006
*snickers*
posted by quonsar at 4:06 AM on May 26, 2006
it's RIDICULOUS that they don't tell the reader where one might read these comments of hers
And tacky. It's easy to imagine there's a bit of kneejerking spite going on when this sort of thing happens. That's always the impression it gives me, anyway.
posted by mediareport at 6:52 AM on May 26, 2006
And tacky. It's easy to imagine there's a bit of kneejerking spite going on when this sort of thing happens. That's always the impression it gives me, anyway.
posted by mediareport at 6:52 AM on May 26, 2006
"I thought the New York Times style guide states that you're not to mention the misspellings and grammar mistakes of subjects in articles, nor to quote them in dialect. Guess that one got thrown out the window for Jessa."
Yeah, that wasn't very nice. On the other hand, for me those were very memorable features of her comment. At least they didn't print them as-is.
"'the New York Times knows that sites like Metafilter are putting them out of business'
*snickers*"
A working print and net journalist said to me, about my being quoted in the NYT from a MeFi comment, that print journalism is freaked out about the net and he's not surprised that they are more and more often going to the net for material. He said that there's a lot of very good, high-quality discourse on the net as long as you're willing to wade through the crap.
And speaking of that quote from me in the NYT, recall that that writer (or editor) both credited my comment to me and credited the source to MetaFilter, as well as mentioning MetaFilter early in the piece. I think that story appeared in the business section, if I recall correctly.
Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that there's at least one regular Mefite who's on the staff at the NYT, and I'd bet there are some more, or at least lurking.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:13 PM on May 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
Yeah, that wasn't very nice. On the other hand, for me those were very memorable features of her comment. At least they didn't print them as-is.
"'the New York Times knows that sites like Metafilter are putting them out of business'
*snickers*"
A working print and net journalist said to me, about my being quoted in the NYT from a MeFi comment, that print journalism is freaked out about the net and he's not surprised that they are more and more often going to the net for material. He said that there's a lot of very good, high-quality discourse on the net as long as you're willing to wade through the crap.
And speaking of that quote from me in the NYT, recall that that writer (or editor) both credited my comment to me and credited the source to MetaFilter, as well as mentioning MetaFilter early in the piece. I think that story appeared in the business section, if I recall correctly.
Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that there's at least one regular Mefite who's on the staff at the NYT, and I'd bet there are some more, or at least lurking.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:13 PM on May 26, 2006 [1 favorite]
there's a lot of very good, high-quality discourse on the net as long as you're willing to wade through the crap.
I know it's just one man's opinion, but reading that makes me feel a bit better about all thecrap discourse I've taken part in here. Maybe it's not a total waste of time after all.
posted by blacklite at 1:30 PM on May 27, 2006
I know it's just one man's opinion, but reading that makes me feel a bit better about all the
posted by blacklite at 1:30 PM on May 27, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by Slothrop at 8:03 AM on May 25, 2006