Remember that interview that Variety EIC Peter Bart gave MTV in June, responding to the “boycott” of his publication by a handful of fanboy sites who insisted that the trade had repeatedly failed to properly credit their “scoops”? Variety’s Anne Thompson resurrected the debate and the Bart quote this morning in a blog post pegged to Comic-Con, where a gang of outlets of various sizes––including us––will be fighting to post the same material at the same time. If my post about The Watchman goes up 20 seconds after Cinematical’s, will I get in trouble for not giving them “credit” for “breaking” the story? What’s the netiquette??!!???
She’s mostly looking at the divide between a “legit” outlet like Variety and the independently run sites like Film School Rejects, but I think Anne makes some good points about this stuff not being the black-and-white matter of thievery that some of the sites would like to believe. As far as I’m concerned, this is the key part of her piece:
It’s not always cut-and-dry–sometimes everyone is chasing the same news and a given reporter may not be aware of what has broken online. A reporter isn’t always tracking down where something broke first, just the story itself.
On the one hand, in saying that a Variety reporter tracking a story may not even know that it “broke” online, the implication is that Variety reporters have better things to do than obsessively read every little junket jockey’s blog looking for “scoops” to “steal.” Not something the puffed-up boys of the blogosphere want to hear, perhaps, but maybe not unreasonable.
But the story also points to a difference in approach between the blogger and the journalist. Thompson notes that, in the case of the Collider/300 sequel incident that motivated the boycott, the Variety reporter dug up extra information that made the initial report richer and more valid. This is what bloggers do every day––taking over where one of us left off and taking things further––but when we do it, tracking the bread crumbs back to the start of the meme and being transparent about the trail is part of the process.
At least, it is for good bloggers.
I agree that if Variety gets wind of a story from a blog, courtesy demands they link to it, but how often are these supposed ’scoops’ sent to Variety independently by publicists? For many readers, a story lacks a certain legitimacy until it appears in one of the trades.
Also, how is a confirmed sequel to 300 even considered a scoop? If a blog reported there would definitely not be a sequel to a hit movie aimed at the fanboy crowd, that would be news worthy.
On a related note, the boycott irritates me as a reader. I want links to the original reporting. Whenever someone filters a story, it’s always with their own slant and details they don’t care about are ignored. I want the original info.
Yeah, I agree with Craig. In fact, even the smaller blog sites are infighting with each over this, famously. It’s a fine line when you just repost something you read elsewhere as it is, but without crediting the original, that sucks.
Then don’t get people started on the “Who Dugg what” monster.