How The Constraints Of 'Traditional Journalism' Sometimes Lead To A Missed Opportunity To Better Inform

from the experiments-in-breaking-out-of-the-box dept

Recently, a NY Times article about the giant patch of floating garbage in the ocean got some attention, not so much for the contents of the article, but because it was the first time the NY Times had worked with Spot.us to fund some journalism. If you're not familiar with Spot.us, it's an innovative non-profit startup, that helps "crowdfund" certain journalism projects. I'm not convinced it's a great business model, but it is one that's interesting to watch, and a partnership with the NY Times is definitely a big win for the organization.

However, I think Mathew Ingram really highlighted the most interesting thing about the whole project. While the NY Times article that came from Spot.us was somewhat mundane and didn't add much to the half a dozen or so other articles that have been written about the garbage patch, the blog written by the reporter who did this project, Lindsey Hoshaw, was a lot more interesting and compelling than the NY Times article itself. But the blog wasn't a part of the NY Times at all.

What Mathew was really showing was how some traditional publications get locked into a certain way of doing things because "this is how we do things." And in that world "the article" is the ultimate goal. It's a "deliverable." The process and the journey seem less important -- even though they're quite often the most interesting parts, to a wider community that wants to feel more and more a part of the journalism process itself. The NY Times is pretty good about doing certain topic blogs, and even brought in the Freakonomics blog under its own brand, a while back. But Mathew makes a really good point that this sort of thing probably would have worked better if the entire blog was seen as a part of the NY Times process. It could have ended with a big "story" -- or not. It's not even clear that's needed here. In the end, the real point is that the old structures don't always make sense. And while it was already a big step for the NY Times to create this story using such a new and different process as Spot.us, the end result might have been even better if they'd gone even further and highlighted the journey of the story, rather than just the endpoint.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Firebowls, Copyright And Crowdfunding (Oh My)

from the will-people-understand-the-nuances? dept

A bunch of people have been sending in John T. Unger's story, claiming that someone who copied his artwork is now suing him in federal court over copyrights. The general sentiment from the submitters, it seems, is to support Unger's position. I avoided writing about this for a while, because the story is actually a lot more complex, and since I think Unger is going too far, I thought it might upset some folks. Plus, the story is pretty complex. Thankfully, the good folks over at Consumerist actually really did an excellent job laying out a pretty balanced look at the issues that doesn't automatically side with Unger.

Here's the summary of the situation:

• Unger makes "firebowls" -- decorative metal bowls that you light a fire in (I had no idea such things existed).
• He copyrighted the design of his firebowls.
• He then discovered that Rick Wittrig was making firebowls that look remarkably similar, but are a bit cheaper.
• Unger got angry and sent a cease-and-desist
• Wittrig filed a lawsuit to claim that Unger's registered copyrights are not legitimate, as there shouldn't be any copyright on utilitarian objects.
• Unger writes up his side of the story (small artist being ripped off!) and asks people to fund his legal defense using popular crowdfunding site Kickstarter

As Consumerist notes, it's easy to quickly side with Unger without understanding the full story, saying that he's an artist who got "ripped off," but that's not at all clear. Yes, it does seem pretty likely that Wittrig copied Unger's designs (they match quite closely and at no point does Wittrig deny copying the designs). But it is a pretty big question as to whether or not Unger's work really is covered by copyright (or should be). Now this whole story is the type of thing that people often bring up when I write about why copyright isn't needed. This -- they say -- is a perfect example where copyright is necessary. Unger is mad because this other guy is "ripping him off" and passing off Unger's designs as his own. Except, again, that's not clear at all. Copyright was designed as an incentive to create -- not a system to block all competition. In the fashion world, as we've noted repeatedly, knockoffs are quite common, and have helped the industry thrive. It actually helps make the brand name originators of the design worth more, because people want the "real" original kind.

So, without copyright, what can Unger do? Well, he's actually already doing it. He put up a site that points out that Wittrig copies him, get lots of attention for it, and a lot more people now know about these kinds of decorative firebowls. My guess is that Unger is suddenly selling a lot more than he was before -- and that'll be true whether or not Wittrig gets the copyrights tossed out. And, in the meantime, having Wittrig around as competition should be good for Unger, pushing him to continue innovating and coming up with new designs.

Separately, I have to admit to some fascination over the use of Kickstarter's crowdfunding platform to fund a "legal defense" rather than just as a way to sell products. Even if I don't think Unger should have much of a legal argument, I think it's a cool use of the platform, which also drives more interest and attention to his own bowls.

So, in the end, I think Wittrig should be free to make these firebowls and to sell them in the marketplace and compete with Unger. At the same time, though, I think Unger should be free to draw lots of attention to his own firebowls combined with the sympathy-inducing story of how he originated the designs that Wittrig copied. In the end, then, they'd both be better off, as it ends up getting both of them a lot more attention for the bowls, and those who feel sympathy for Unger, or who just want to support the "original" artist, will pay up for his versions of the bowls, whereas those who would rather save some money will pay Wittrig. In the end, both of them end up being better off, and no copyright battle needs to happen. Unfortunately, in an age where so many content creators have been taught to use copyright as a crutch, that's not what we get.

105 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Getting People To Pay For Investigative Reporting Directly

from the well,-there's-one-idea dept

When old school journalists complain about the supposed "threats" from companies like Craigslist and Google or things like blogging, one of the common refrains is: "but who will pay for investigative reporting." The idea is that these other services can replace the basic news facts, but it's tough to see how true investigative reporting will get funded. Yet, as with all markets in a state of flux, we've seen that if there's a real demand, new business models will come along to handle it -- and that seems to be exactly what is happening in the investigative reporting realm. The NY Times points out a few different experiments in other forms of funding investigative reporting, with the bulk of the story talking about getting interested parties to pay up front for an investigation. In other words, if there is a concerned group of folks worried about, say, dangerous chemicals leaking into the drinking water, it could put that story up, and if enough people contribute to the investigation, a reporter can get paid and do the investigation.

While there are some concerns that this would lead to biased journalism, there's nothing saying that the journalist's results have to support the initial worry. In fact, I would imagine that in cases where folks are worried about things like chemicals in the drinking water, they'd be much more relieved to find out that it's really nothing. Either way, this model fits exactly with the business models we've discussed in the past: getting people to pay for the creation of content. The creation of new content is a scarce good, and there may be some group of people for whom its worth paying for. In this case, the example fits the business model we describe for content after it's created as well, since the organization doing these investigative reports will then offer them to newspapers for free (so long as they don't want an exclusive right -- which would not be free). That's exactly how it should be: it costs money for the initial creation, but then the content is freed, where it adds much more value (and attracts more people to fund later stories). Who knows if this particular effort will work (execution is everything, after all), but the model is sound, and shows that despite gloomy whining from old school reporters, the new business models will show up.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..