First in Print-Cincinnati Enquirer's New Policy

[Sea Ray]

I wasn't sure where to put this so I settled on here. If the MODs feel differently, then please move it.

The Cincinnati Enquirer today talked about the increasing challenges they have today with the issue of print media vs online content. The issue is the print media is something its customers pay for whereas the online stuff is being given out for free. In an evolving effort to deal with this new reality the paper has decided that they will begin labeling certain articles as "First in Print." Any article with that heading will have a 24 hr delay before it appears in the Online version. This is meant to give the print customers a "perk" over what the online moochers (my word, not theirs) get. One such example of this is a scathing article by John Fay about how Brandon Phillips is a Prima Donna. I mentioned this article in the Old Red Guard.

In the Forum section, the Enquirer editor talks in depth about what to do about this issue as papers are grappling for money. He goes on to talk about an issue that may or may not directly effect this site. The problem is that a paper like his spends big bucks paying its writers as well as their travel costs and other expenses to deliver a story and then other sites take their news story and reprints it. The following quote was in the article:

"online-only 'new-media' operations regurgitate a lot of our work and some news releases but do little original reporting"

And this is where Redszone may or may not be effected:

In an attempt to track down such content parasites, the Enquirer and Cincinnati.com now employ technology that scours the media landscape for illegal use of our content. In recent weeks, we have sent warnings to several blogs, Web sites and radio stations.

We are mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore

This is where I admittedly have more questions than answers and I invite input from MODs and others.

Are there guidelines we need to follow when posting content from Cincinnati.com?

Does the fact that this site now has a system in place where it either charges its readers or sells ads complicate things? In other words can the Enquirer make a case that money is being made by this site if it posts articles from the Enquirer that could in turn generate more traffic to its site?

Have we (as a site) gotten any warnings?

This is a very complicated issue and I for one think we're living in a golden age where we get so much free stuff online. I am amazed that I have over 5 pages of free Apps on my i-pod. I get everything from 14,000 radio stations to sports scores to weather reports to international news and multiple entertainment sources for free. I don't think this will continue and the print media in particular can't continue to give this stuff out for free, but on the other hand we the customer are holding the cards right now. I kinda feel sorry for a guy like CTrent who is trying to make a living putting stuff on a website that can be accessed for free as well as pasted on this site for all of us to read for free. It's great for us but I don't see how it can continue indefinitely.

[macro]

I post at another site that asks that those posting articles to post only a link followed by the first few lines of the article. It serves as a sort of teaser and allows the reader to decide if they're interested enough to click over to the original article.

I don't know this for a fact, but I would think the newspapers would appreciate such posts because it drives more people to their sites than they would get otherwise.

As for the Enquirer's new strategy of "first in print", I think they'll just spite themselves in the form of driving online news seekers away from their Web site. People will just get into the habit of getting their news somewhere else. They (The Enquirer) are grasping at straws.

[BCubb2003]

I think the link and a few sentences is the safest way to go, especially if you want to support people like C. Trent.

I also think we're going to see a movement toward specializing in one medium over others. The Enquirer has been straddling two worlds, but it can't let go of print. So it makes its online operation less than it could be. An online operation like C. Trent's, with nothing to lose, can go full-speed online. They're all niche markets now, and somebody might find a way to specialize in the print market, someone else will specialize in Web sites, and someone else will specialize in mobile apps.

[flyer85]

well that ought to save 'em

[Boss-Hog]

To the best of my knowledge, we have not received any warnings to date, as this is the first I've heard of this new policy. Moving forward, to be on the safe side at least with stories from the Enquirer, I think it'd be prudent to follow the suggestions mentioned above and include the link and, optionally, a few sentences from the article.

[Unassisted]

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

I think it'd be prudent to follow the suggestions mentioned above and include the link and, optionally, a few sentences from the article.

FWIW, another place I post at has the moderators impose a limit for copyrighted material excerpts of "up to 2 sentences." (See the quote from their TOS below.) Some members there get carried away with the notion of "a snippet" and seem to think it allows excerpts of several paragraphs.

Copyrighted Material - Instead of copying-and-pasting articles, photos, or other material you find on the Internet, you should be posting links to those articles. Posting a snippet from the article and then the link is the appropriate way to post.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

To the best of my knowledge, we have not received any warnings to date, as this is the first I've heard of this new policy. Moving forward, to be on the safe side at least with stories from the Enquirer, I think it'd be prudent to follow the suggestions mentioned above and include the link and, optionally, a few sentences from the article.

That makes sense. Where this really comes into play is in the Spring Training update section. That thread is full of articles posted in their entirety. I suggest an announcement be made there

[klw]

How does the new policy apply to tweets from media members? Obviously these are not from a media organization's website and only consist usually of one sentence or two. Just curious. It would be hard not to post the whole tweet if we quote. Can we quote these or should we just link and paraphrase?

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by klw

How does the new policy apply to tweets from media members? Obviously these are not from a media organization's website and only consist usually of one sentence or two. Just curious. It would be hard not to post the whole tweet if we quote. Can we quote these or should we just link and paraphrase?

I'd say tweets are fair game. Once it's tweeted it's out there...

[Boss-Hog]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

I'd say tweets are fair game. Once it's tweeted it's out there...

Same here...

[OnBaseMachine]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

That makes sense. Where this really comes into play is in the Spring Training update section. That thread is full of articles posted in their entirety. I suggest an announcement be made there

It's free material, and I always post a link to the article. Even on the pictures I always reference where they came from.

Is it okay to post blog updates?

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by OnBaseMachine

It's free material, and I always post a link to the article. Even on the pictures I always reference where they came from.

Is it okay to post blog updates?

The issue is, it *isn't* free material.

Websites like Enqurier.com rely on advertisements on the page to bring revenue from their online content (much like RedsZone now does). When you post the full text of an article on here, you're allowing people to read the content without going to Enquirer.com and viewing the advertisements. Even if you don't look at a single ad on the website, you're still reducing the number of "site views" -- which, in most cases, effects how the ads are priced (and therefore the money made by the website).

On the issue of photos -- it's something to look at as well. When you post images directly from other websites (as in, just copy the "image link" and paste it directly onto your post), you're not only content-poaching (which, again, robs the original site of the page views and accompanying ad revenue), but you're also stealing the bandwidth of that website by requiring their servers to load the image every time a RedsZone thread gets viewed.

For now, I think the best thing is for people to be more judicious about what they post. Most content isn't free -- and if you don't know whether you're allowed to post a given article, best to air on the side of caution and provide a snippet with a link.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by OnBaseMachine

It's free material, and I always post a link to the article. Even on the pictures I always reference where they came from.

Is it okay to post blog updates?

I guess from now on they don't want us posting the whole article even if it's free. The sticky in ORG was very specific:

If you wish to open discussion about an article or reference an article in a post, please limit yourself to no more than a 2 sentence "snippet" of an article and include a link to allow readers to seek out the material themselves.

So I take that to mean don't post the whole article, but I'll leave to the MODs to have the final word on this.

[TC81190]

RIP Enquirer

[Boston Red]

"First in Print" is probably the worst idea I've ever heard from a newspaper.