gawker stole ian shapira's story.

i loved this article in today's washington post.

at first glance, it seems like another "how will newspapers survive in the internet age" sort of story. but i think the point made is valid:

Current law basically allows the Gawkers of the world to appropriate others' work, repurpose it and sell ads against it with no payment to or legal recourse for the company that paid me while I sat through two hours of a generational seminar.

Marburger compared my article and the Gawker posting and concluded: "This is what in our opinion is a huge contributor to the demise of those who are originating news reports. If you don't change the law to stop this, originators of news reports cannot survive."

i don't pick up near the traffic a site like gawker does. at least not yet. but i like to think there is a responsibilty on the part of the blogosphere to give credit where credit is due. but i also think it's interesting how newspapers and aggregators both need each other in order to survive, yet the former is faltering financially while the latter is cleaning up. a good read and thought-starter, for sure.

NYT banners

i remarked on my facebook* today how dismayed i was by a scientology.org banner on the new york times's website. but that damned gawker beat me to it.

it also brings up this shingles ad which is prominently displayed today, and that is just completely nasty. whatever happened to escapism during hard times? sheesh.

i will say in my defense, however: i am on west coast time. check mate.

* also, note: i'm not sure what compelled me to link to my facebook. maybe because i have a vanity URL now. but i don't want to be your friend. i mean, really. yes, even you.