In yet another exhibit in the ongoing debate about what constitutes fair use online, Washington Post reporter Ian Shapira writes about how Gawker Media “ripped off” a recent story he wrote. In addition to this pejorative (and arguably also inaccurate) description, Shapira also uses a considerable helping of hyperbole in referring to his tale as “The Death of Journalism, Gawker Edition.” He describes at some length how Gawker lifted a liberal number of quotes and other information from his story, which he says he spent hours acquiring through in-person interviews and so on.

So if the Gawker item is a “rip-off,” which most people would take to mean a wholesale plagiarisation of the original, then there must be no reference to the Post story as the source, and no links either, right? Wrong. Shapira notes that Gawker links to his story high up in its piece, but says that there is “no direct mention of the Post.” In other words, linking is somehow not good enough any more. So there’s no reference to the Post at all then? Er, not exactly. There is a link and reference at the bottom of the piece, in the same way that many blog posts use the “via” link. That doesn’t seem to be enough for Mr. Shapira, however.

If you want to look at the facts of this case in more detail, Zachary Seward at the Nieman Journalism Lab has done an excellent job of parsing the specifics, including the number of words in each piece, the number of “original” words, the estimated time it would take to produce each one, and — most importantly — the number of links and traffic to each, and how high each piece ranks in a Google search for the topic (key ingredients in what Jeff Jarvis and others call the “link economy,” a term that some argue is inaccurate, including Tim O’Brien of the NYT).

I think a couple of elements in this case are particularly interesting: One is that Shapira says at the beginning of his piece that when he first came across the Gawker post, he was happy — and even flattered — that the site had referred to his story and linked to it. He only got mad when his editor told him that he should be, saying the website “stole” his story and asking him why he wasn’t outraged. The more he thought about it, the madder he got. Why? Because he did all the work, he says, but apparently didn’t get enough credit (he should try working for a wire service, where that kind of thing is considered routine).

The other thing that’s interesting is that the Gawker item had not one but three links to the Post, and an explicit mention of the source. Shapira admits that these links drove traffic, but seems to be arguing that they just weren’t prominent enough, or not obvious enough, or something along those lines (some, including Alan Murray of the WSJ, argue this is Google’s fault). William Mougayar responded to me on Twitter that the credit given to the Post was “like a footnote” — and that got me thinking. We’re perfectly comfortable with long excerpts from other people’s work in other places when they are given just a footnote. Why is this case so different? It even includes traffic, which scholarly footnoting rarely does.

I’d be willing to agree that Gawker could have — and maybe even should have, in an ethical sense — mentioned Shapira and his story specifically. But there is no way in heck that a post with three links and an explicit reference to the source constitutes anything approaching a “rip-off” or the “death of journalism.” How about the death of hyperbole, and the rebirth of rational debate about the value of linking and traffic, and/or the ethics of sourcing online? That would be nice.

About the author

Mathew 2414 posts

I'm a Toronto-based former senior writer with Gigaom and my favorite things to write about are social technology, media and the evolution of online behavior

76 Responses to “Gawker, the WaPo and the death of journalism”
  1. Twitter Comment






    @blogcodea it's ours :-)

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  2. Twitter Comment






    @blogcodea oh yes!

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  3. Twitter Comment






    @TheJLV for PR they mention Schomburg but not Sylvia del Villar?!?!? oh snap. let me get my blade :D it's a HUGE project. good 1st effort ;)

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  4. Twitter Comment






    @blogcodea you can always add your voice, miss. not that you weren't. just haven't seen many others do it besides u and I.

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  5. Twitter Comment






    @TheJLV do you know them? they need a wiki, like, yesterday. this kind of project needs it.

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  6. Twitter Comment






    @blogcodea I don't. Found it from one of my friends on facebook. Use their contact page. Make it happen.

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  7. […] that it would be impossible to summarize the whole conversation in one blog post. Mike Masnick and Matthew Ingram have two of the sharpest takes I’ve seen. But one thing I haven’t seen anyone point out […]

  8. […] or quoting as copyright infringement may see this as a bonus. Consider the recent hullabaloo over Gawker liberally quoting from a Washington Post┬ápiece. I don’t see it as a bonus. I see it as newspaper missing out on the major benefit of […]

  9. This is a really interesting debate. I've gone through and read the original Post article, and I read The Gawker blog post in question. In my opinion, The Gawker did nothing wrong by quoting the Post article extensively. The most obvious point which proves The Gawker article was not plagiarised — The author used large quotation marks to distinguish unoriginal content from original content!

  10. Hello,

    Nice post I Like your site very well and continue to do so.

  11. […] respuesta de la blogosfera anglosajona no se ha hecho esperar. Mathew Ingram le responde que Gawker enlaza a la fuente tres veces en el post y la cita por su nombre pero que esto no parece […]

Comments are closed.