Skype Allegations - Ripple Effects
/
This isn't breaking news, but I feel compelled to share it anyway. My PC was out with a virus for a couple of days, am I'm behind on everything, including blogging. That said...
The blogging community knows full well that Andy Abramson was first to market with this story last weekend. On Tuesday, James Enck noted that ZD NET UK was the first major news pub to "break" the story WITHOUT properly citing/crediting Andy as the source - which we all know to be true. You knew it would happen sooner or later. I empathize with blogger Russell Shaw, who writes for Ziff Davis, but would not have done such a thing.
The Skype story itself may be time sensitive, but the above issue is not, and maybe it will go down in the Web 2.0 annals as the "Abramson Precedent". I've always had mixed feelings about journalists who blog, and this scenario with ZD NET has crossed a line. In the blogger world, most of us know the credibility behind most other bloggers. It's a given that we would only post items of substance, or least will cite our sources.
However, ZD NET did not extend the courtesy and tenents of professional journalism to Andy in this case, as if a blog is not deemed to be a credible source. To me, that's crossing the line. It doesn't take much to ascertain that Andy's credentials are A-1, and he should have been accorded credit, without question. This is certainly not the first time that a quality story has come from the blogosphere, and it sure won't be the last. Blogs, of course, and gaining lots of credence in the publishing world due to their immediacy and the closeness of many bloggers to the best sources.
I'd like to think this won't happen again, but if/when it does, bloggers need to stake their claim, and keep making noise. Traditional journalists need to know these things get noticed, and we have our code of behavior as well. We know who the sources are in cases like these, and that's an easy story to tell if need be.
The blogs have been quiet about the Skype story the past day or so, but I just wanted to add a post from Monday that I haven't seen referenced yet. It's from "Mr Wave Theory", and he's got some very interesting thoughts about what's behind the Skype allegations. I didn't know "Mr. Wave" until now, so I can't really comment on the strength of his views.
The blogging community knows full well that Andy Abramson was first to market with this story last weekend. On Tuesday, James Enck noted that ZD NET UK was the first major news pub to "break" the story WITHOUT properly citing/crediting Andy as the source - which we all know to be true. You knew it would happen sooner or later. I empathize with blogger Russell Shaw, who writes for Ziff Davis, but would not have done such a thing.
The Skype story itself may be time sensitive, but the above issue is not, and maybe it will go down in the Web 2.0 annals as the "Abramson Precedent". I've always had mixed feelings about journalists who blog, and this scenario with ZD NET has crossed a line. In the blogger world, most of us know the credibility behind most other bloggers. It's a given that we would only post items of substance, or least will cite our sources.
However, ZD NET did not extend the courtesy and tenents of professional journalism to Andy in this case, as if a blog is not deemed to be a credible source. To me, that's crossing the line. It doesn't take much to ascertain that Andy's credentials are A-1, and he should have been accorded credit, without question. This is certainly not the first time that a quality story has come from the blogosphere, and it sure won't be the last. Blogs, of course, and gaining lots of credence in the publishing world due to their immediacy and the closeness of many bloggers to the best sources.
I'd like to think this won't happen again, but if/when it does, bloggers need to stake their claim, and keep making noise. Traditional journalists need to know these things get noticed, and we have our code of behavior as well. We know who the sources are in cases like these, and that's an easy story to tell if need be.
The blogs have been quiet about the Skype story the past day or so, but I just wanted to add a post from Monday that I haven't seen referenced yet. It's from "Mr Wave Theory", and he's got some very interesting thoughts about what's behind the Skype allegations. I didn't know "Mr. Wave" until now, so I can't really comment on the strength of his views.
