“The mainstream media stole my news story and didn’t give me credit!”
I’ve heard that gripe from lots of hyperlocalists, and on Tuesday blogger Danny Sullivan illustrated exactly how it was done to him. In a detailed post, he showed how his original story — about a woman who’s suing Google for bad walking directions — eventually spun into content for CBS News and The Associated Press. Neither news organization attributed Sullivan as the primary source, he claimed.
That borderline plagiarism sucks to no end, and I don’t like it any more than Sullivan. But it happens. Hyperlocalists and bloggers unwillingly offer plump, juicy leads to mainstream reporters, who both appreciate the tip and refuse to acknowledge the competition. Likewise, small media bootlegs information from larger outfits. And sadly, hyperlocalists “borrow” quotes, images and other content from other hyperlocalists, sometimes without attribution.
There’s no foolproof way around it, but the tactics below might force news outlets to acknowledge in some way their original sources:
Use original images when possible. Sullivan’s story offered screenshots of Google Maps, which he embellished with a few arrows. The screenshots’ appearance on The Daily Mail and The Financial Post without attribution was what tipped off Sullivan to the growing problem, he wrote.
While Sullivan felt the screenshots were protected under his copyright (I believe they’re Google’s copyrighted derivatives), the use of originally composed maps, photos and illustrations might have given him more leverage against other outlets’ fair use of his content. They would have had to acknowledge Sullivan as the source, even if it was only in a “republished with permission” line and link.
Keep a tight grip on source documents. Sullivan based part of his story on the plaintiff’s complaint, a document filed with the US District Court in Utah. Sullivan said he uploaded the paperwork onto Scribd, a free web service that allows one to share or embed PDFs and other content. The magazine PC World then accessed the document directly, bypassing Sullivan as a source.
I don’t blame PC World for hitting the ultimate primary source, the complaint filed in court. But Sullivan might have been better off uploading the PDF onto his website’s host server and not onto an open social-networking service that allows viewers to print, download or embed the document. Self-hosting would mean any link to the document would have led back to Sullivan’s URL.
Of course, PC World could have found a way around that. But maybe a watermark superimposed over the original document could have shown Sullivan as the document’s initial, intended recipient. Personally, I don’t see a watermark disturbing the authenticity of a document, but if there are other thoughts on that, I’m open to hearing them.
When a story is stolen, blog the hell out of it. Sullivan did a terrific job of mapping where his story went and how larger media companies cannibalized it. The blog post eventually made its way through the Twitterverse, bringing attention to sloppy editorial practices and lazy reporting. He may not have gotten the attribution he deserved, but at least he drew attention to the problem and brought some recognition to himself.
Again, none of these tactics guarantee attribution or even a link. But if ripoff artists stumble over them in the process of their “reporting,” then I’m cool with that.
Photo courtesy of Flickr user ratterrell.
The fashion report
So it was with great interest that I read this recent article in The New York Times about a startup clothing company that allows its customers to design their own shirts. Shoppers visit the company’s website, pick out colors, patterns and cuff styles, drop some coin and in four weeks, they’re rocking personalized gear.
The company’s success is rooted in its “emotional-value proposition,” says the company’s 22-year-old CEO. (Freakin’ hipster!) Customers play a part in the creative process, and what results is a personalized shirt that oozes individual expression. Okay.
That got me thinking: If consumers will pay to design a shirt, would they pay to participate in hyperlocal content creation? Does the emotional-value proposition apply to hyperlocal news? No and yes.
First, anyone who will pay to generate content is an advertiser. Consumers can usually distinguish an advertisement from editorial content because ads are labeled as such. But when an advertiser’s content is passed off as news, or if the hyperlocalist accepts compensation for creating “advertorial” content, then the news outlet’s objectivity comes into question.
Next, no one should create news content for the purpose of self-expression without fair compensation. That’s what larger media outlets like Forbes.com and The Washington Post call “content for exposure” (or more precisely, content for exploitation), and the practice only dilutes the quality of an organization’s content.
Instead, the emotional-value proposition can apply to opportunities for consumer feedback. A moderated comment section adds tremendous value to a news website. (The same goes for editorial essays printed on paper or broadcast as sound or video.) The opportunity to offer constructive criticism allows news consumers to express interest in their community, and the interaction reflects the news organization’s worth in the community.
That quality is perhaps the strongest selling point when approaching advertisers, sponsors and subscribers. It means that consumers do more than just consume a media outlet’s content. They assign value to it, they incorporate the information into their decision making, they allow it to influence their lives. That kind of quality far outweighs a website’s page views, a newspaper’s circulation or a broadcast outlet’s audience numbers.
The emotional-value proposition also applies to crowd-sourced content, but one should approach that with caution. I’ll get into that tomorrow.
Photo courtesy of Flickr user Kirsten Hartsoch.