A couple months ago I agreed to do an interview with a major national magazine that I enjoy and respect. I rarely do face to face interviews because I have significant trust issues with how an interview can be reflected in a story.
I try to stick exclusively to email for all my interviews. In this case I made an exception because I had developed a good relationship with the magazine.
The interview process was unexceptional. Meaning that it went well. The writer and I got along and I thought it was a fun interview to do.
The article came out last week and I liked it. No problems at all.
Then yesterday, the person who interviewed me, who is also a blogger, decided to blog about our interview. The blog ran on a site that he is associated with, but is not affiliated at all with the magazine the interview was for. He never asked, nor told me that our interview would be blogged about. While I respect the magazine, I am not a fan of the site he works for, or of its affiliated site that the blog ran on. A point I let him know. I would not have done the interview had I known he would blog about it for this site.
As it turns out, he did not clear the blog with the magazine either.
So he traveled on their dime to do an interview for their magazine and then used the interview to generate a blog for his site from a subject that was not expecting to be blogged about.
Ethical or not ?
Is This Ethical for a Blogger/Journalist ?
Recent Posts
- The Internet Hammer and the everything Nail (7/04/2008)
- Ruh Roh - Porn could sink Youtube in Viacom case.... (7/03/2008)
- NBC vs Fanboys vs Sports Talk Radio vs The Olympics (6/29/2008)
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. Definitely not. I'm sure many would be interested to know who pulled this stunt.
Posted at 1:32PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by Scott Cropper
4. From the sounds of it, is this a blog for commercial purposes? Or are we just talking about a personal blog. I guess if it's a personal blog, I don't see any harm in talking about something you did for work. However, if the intent behind blogging about the interview is to gain some kind of profit from the whole experience, then I would have to agree that it is unethical. The benefit of the interview from their side is supposed to be for the magazine, not for the promotion of whatever blog he works on.
It's one thing to blog about your job on your own personal space, it's another thing entirely to try and further profit from an interview you were asked to perform as a function of your job.
Posted at 1:36PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by Mike Maloney
5. Totally not ethical. He basically lied to you and then used your interview for his own personal gain. I'd be more than upset with him and hopefully, the magazine is as well. That was very unprofessional in my opinion. His work for the magazine should be kept separate from his blogging life.
Posted at 1:38PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by tiffany
6. I think a blog is too general of a term these days. A blog can be a venue for a journalist to get their reporting out, but it can also be used as a personal journal.
If his blog is more like a journal that talks about his daily personal life and does not generate revenue for himself, then i don't see a problem with him blogging about an event that happened to him during that day. Even if that includes meeting somebody that would prefer not to be in another's journal.
If his blog is a commercial blog, used to promote himself in any manner or used to generate revenue, then I believe he cross into a newsreporter/blogger and must ensure he remains ethical.
Posted at 1:38PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by duhblow7
7. The description seems to fit Will Leitch of Deadspin. Will interviewed Mark for GQ, then wrote some blog posts yesterday about it on Valleywag.
Posted at 1:40PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by Jeff Beckham
8. I think you need to call his name out. It seems you feel he crossed an ethical line. For journalist the way you keep them ethical is when they cross that line, you mean it know. You make them lose a little credibility, because as a journalist, that's all you've got.
CALL HIM OUT BY NAME. You don't have to link to his blog, but call him out. That way if somebody else is considering an interview with this guy, they can google him and they will know what may happen to them. If you feel he's unethical, tie his name to it.
Posted at 1:42PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by duhblow7
9. the background is here:
http://valleywag.com/347396/why-no-rich-techie-should-ever-buy-a-sports-team
Posted at 1:44PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by _ryan
10. Completely unethical, possibly illegal.
The magazine that paid for his travel and wage, likely owns all of the intellectual property generated. When the author took that property and used it for his own benefit outside of the company on blog, he may have violated the law.
Even if he did not break the law, it was unethical, and bad journalism.
These are new issues that have to be tested and figured out though...
11. Here's the Valleywag post (meant to include it before):
http://valleywag.com/347396/why-no-rich-techie-should-ever-buy-a-sports-team
Posted at 1:44PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by Jeff Beckham
12. If his blog was personal, and not for profit, then I think it was ethical. Otherwise, not at all.
I have seen you blog about your experiences with people in meetings and other such events that have happened to you. Did you ask all of them if you could blog about the experience before you posted?
Your experiences are just that, your experiences. Other than the number of viewers, how is it different from telling a group of your friends about what you did, except on a much larger scale.
Like I said though, if it was for profit, then I think he owes his employer some royalties from advertising on that article, if it was personal, then he has every right to tell whoever he wants if he didn't sign an NDA saying he wouldn't talk about it.
Posted at 1:48PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by Kray
13. If the blogger's site has ads and generates revenue for anyone other than the magazine then the the answer to the question is plain and simple, this is definitely not ethical. He did the interview as a representative of a magazine and any quotes or references on a personal blog are probably out-of-line unless the blog is associated with the magazine.
Posted at 1:57PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by David
14. I don't know if it's a question of ethics, just intelligence. But then I don't know the details of the implicit or explicit contract you had with this person. If you said "I don't want any contents of this interview on that site," and he agreed, obviously a line was crossed. But if he did the interview, knowing you don't like the other site, and posted it anyway, then he's just a douchebag. Plus I'm sure the magazine would have a beef with him using their material for gain elsewhere. That's just bad business.
15. Depends on how you see blogs... if it is a "conversation" then you have to treat it like one - if you'll talk about it with your friends, colleagues, or whatever, then it should be ok to extend that into the blogosphere imo.
Obviously, this is a threat to people used to tightly controlling their message, what people say about them, etc, and have the resources and legal peeps to exert that control. Honestly, I'd say that's old thinking though. In this new world, we need to live with conversations, and new forums for those conversations.
Another thought... would it be polite to ask you first, if he knew people would be interested? Yes, I think so, and if his replationship with you was important he'd avoid doing it. Unethical? No, I don't think so. By any "technical" definition journalists don't really place hardly any "ethical" limits on themselves anyway when it comes to talking to newsmakers. I'm not a journalist, but I'm sure they view it as a two way street too. (ie, if you want them to print things from time to time as you want it, this is part of the deal.) Who knows. I'd classify this in the "good problem to have" category of problems.
Posted at 2:03PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by Duncan Lamb
16. My 2 cents (and IANAL or a journalist):
Totally ethical, as long as:
1) He didn't explicitly promise not to blog on the site in question as a condition of the interview (you didn't say he did, so I'm assuming not).
2) He didn't claim in the blog post that he had interviewed you *for that blog* (as opposed to for the magazine).
3) The blog post wasn't simply a recap of the interview, but a specific opinion piece that incidentally refers to the actual interview.
4) His contract with the magazine doesn't explicitly prohibit him from blogging about his interview subjects.
The fact of the matter is, freelance journalists today are gathering information that they could express in a whole bunch of public forums, including blogs. If you want to tell this blogger that he can't mention you on his blog AT ALL if he wants to talk to you, that's your call -- but otherwise, you talk to the media, it's fair game.
Think about it this way: would there be any question if *another* blogger had posted the same thing, based on his/her own reading of the published interview? What's really the difference between those two cases?
Assuming Jeff B is correct that this is Valleywag/Deadspin's Will Leitch, and the post in question is the one he linked to in comment 9: I think Will did a pretty good job of disclosing:
1) that he had interviewed you for GQ, and
2) that you had expressed significant displeasure with Deadspin, at least (if not Valleywag as well).
For the record, I'm not a big fan of Valleywag either, and wouldn't blame you particularly for just refusing to talk to anyone affiliated with the site. But in this case, I don't think there's anything unethical.
(To folks making the for-profit/personal blog distinction: I don't think that's a particularly valid distinction anymore. I'd say that as long as the author linked to the interview itself, e.g. the published source that's being referred to, he's fulfilled any ethical obligations to the magazine.)
Posted at 2:04PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by Adam Elman
17. It seems to me to be transparently obvious this action is one that is absent of basic ethics. I see no reason for this other than to be deliberately provocative.
I don't know about illegal. It is a crime to be a bonehead?
I have two questions: One, who is he? (come on Mark, you know what curiosity did to the cat) And two, did you not like what he wrote of you?
18. I wouldn't be so quick to condemn. The Valleywag post is essentially an opinion column - why Will thinks that Mark wouldn't be allowed to buy a major league baseball team. He does use a quote from the GQ interview (I assume that's where it's from - don't know whether it's in the final printed edition or not.) to lead into the column, but he could have just as easily written the post without that quote.
What if the Valleywag post had appeared without the highlighted quote from Mark? Does the same question -- ethical or not -- apply?
Posted at 2:07PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by Jeff Beckham
19. these days a lot of wannabes try to be "disruptive" ..they think its cool without knowing what it means. Point here mark is it wont hurt you a bit, though annoying, and clearly will stifle the pricks career growth. His choice to use the blogosphere and your goodwill to his advantage will turn out to be catastrophic for his next celeb inquiry and job interview. You can't take advantage of good people and get away with it , unless of course your NBA referees and have other motivations.
Posted at 2:15PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by zwe
20. He filfuilled his contract with his employer, then blogged about it on his own time. I don't see that as a problem unless his employment contract specifically forbids it (and we don't know if that's his deal or not).
I'm sorry your name is now associated with a site you don't approve of, but surely this is not the first time you've gotten publicity you have no control over? It's business, man, get over it and move on.
Posted at 2:21PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by Sprezzatura
1. We're sure that he doesn't care about ethics, only blog hits and garnering attention for increased book sales.
Posted at 1:32PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by Miguel