Yeah. Like, who gives a crap about whether it's true, right? Because after all, we'd rather read garbage and rumors than fact. Denton should be embarrassed to have written and circulated this memo. But he's probably not.
From the Awl, a memo from Nick Denton to Gawker staffers.
From: Nick Denton
Date: Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:33 PM
Subject: We're not running a newspaper
A few cases recently where we've thought *way* too much before publishing. Even when we've had exclusive information or even documentary evidence.
There's always a good argument for waiting. Let's check to see whether the associated claim is true; oh, the source might be exposed.
But we should publish anyway, making clear what we know to be true and what remains up in the air. Or even just publish a headline or quicklink and fill the story in later. We can always update. We can always write a second post when we've established more of the facts.
We've brought in some of the better traditions of newspapers. We're breaking more stories than we ever have. That's awesome.
But there's no way we're going to slow our publishing schedule to that of a ponderous newspaper-style organization — where everything has to go through layers of edit and approval and checking and legal. If we did that, we'd be neither as authoritative as a newspaper nor as nimble as the smaller blogs that *do* indeed publish as soon as they get something.
At some media organizations you might get rapped for running a premature story. At Gawker Media, you'll lose way more points for being scooped on a story you had in your hands.
Nick
A little update, because this memo is so disturbing. I did a little legal work a couple of years ago, preparing to serve as a defense witness in a libel case. Had it gone to trial, the suit would have turned on accuracy and whether the paper had done the utmost to report and verify the facts, and had stuck to good journalistic practices. And as a copy chief at one point in my career, during which the city desk never met a deadline it couldn't blow, I would occasionally yell out to the rim as time ran out, "If it ain't libel, send it." But, you see, that was the one unbreachable barrier--libel. You simply cannot tell your staff to skip the well-established editing process AND the lawyers and think that that won't blow up in your face someday. I await the first legal test of this foolish memo's premise.
And 'fess up, New York Times and Maureen Dowd.
Poynter's columnists are strangely silent today on the story of Maureen Dowd's plagiarism of Josh Marshall, right down to the punctuation marks. So for those of you who were watching the NBA playoffs last night instead of reading newspaper/blog controversies, here are some links:
Brad DeLong has a theory.
Gawker explains the issue.
Little Green Footballs has its own complaints.
And Huffington Post messes up:
Maureen Dowd Admits Inadvertently Lifting Line From TPM's Josh Marshall
The headline says it was inadvertent, which is what Dowd says. The columnist gets it right by simply reporting the facts.
Newspapers are under serious attack by bloggers convinced that either we're irrelevant or we're busy stealing their reporting, a word I would normally put into quotes when talking about blogs because so much of that material originates with newspapers. But Marshall is a definite exception, a journalist who turned to the web to continue his fine work. This is not the first time he's caught people borrowing his work but it's not usually so blatant.
UPDATE: Here's another argument for journalists as brands.
The New York Observer did a piece a few days ago about journalists and their need to create a brand or face irrelevancy. As much as I love blogs and the Internet in general, this idea perplexes me and makes me wonder where it all leads.
As someone who rarely reads bylines—and if I do notice, it’s because something in the tone or a particular phrasing has caught my eye and I want to see if someone whose work I’ve doubted or admired is the author.
That’s also why reporters’ byline strikes always make me laugh and cringe at the same time--does anyone really care?
It does seem to me that we ought to identify ourselves a bit, that having a blog is a good idea for reporters, editors, artists, photographers and so on.
But this leads somewhere. You’re a brand, yes, but one that is more easily a fat, tempting target of bloggers, especially political ones, who will go after you for perceived biases. We’ve already had instances of looney bloggers listing newsmakers’ home phone numbers, seeming to threaten the kids, doing records checks on journalists and others. Is this where we want to go? Or do we want the institution to stand for and by our good work?
Gawker takes a look at the issue, too; make sure you read the comments.
This would seem to merit more attention than it's gotten, and it's an issue that goes well beyond The New York Times and one of its formerly probationary reporters.
