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
Reader Comments
(Page 2)22. I think this definitely leans toward unethical. Especially since he did not clear this with his employer. I think that he abused his relationship with his employer to use the interview for personal gain.
At a minimum he should have cleared it with his employer.
23. If you remove the quote AND the reference to the interview, than its probably okay. But, adding the quote and putting in the part about conducting the interview, that crossed the line from opinion piece to reporting. Mr. Cuban signed a deal with GQ, which likely included terms and conditions of the content collected. Valleywag is likely not in the terms of use. Since the author so clearly linked the interview to the story, including a direct quote, I feel its unethical. This guy, as an employee of GQ, likely violated the terms of the Cuban-GQ contract.
Posted at 2:25PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by Chris
24. I don't think what Will did was wrong. He only used a quote from the article, and the substance of his post wouldn't have changed much had someone else written the article.
Posted at 2:29PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by Steve
26. blogging -- ethical? you must be joking. it starts with the biggest blogs and the industry and runs down from there. the whole thing is an unethical mess. so nothing out of the ordinary here.
Posted at 2:36PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by jt
27. While he did use the interview to make a post on another site, none of the information (except for the fact that you compared his blog to Inside Edition) in his post was new or not included in the article. He didn't keep a juicy quote from GQ to use for his own gain, which would be obviously unethical. His view expressed in his blog post could have been made even if he hadn't done the interview. I don't see anything wrong with what was done in this case.
Posted at 2:50PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by Brandon
28. I understand making a buck, but journalism, especially today, needs higher standards. I think the writer hi-jacked his own work and exploited it. He was paid for a job and he apparently did it well, but the arrogance and ignorance associated with leveraging the conversation to include in a blog for some other ultimate financial gain basically destroys whatever journalistic integrity you thought the writer had.
Unethical.
29. Not ethical.
This brings up a bigger point, though:
Journalists are not credentialed workers. And with the proliferation of blogs, anyone can rationally claim to be a "journalist." This is dangerous, since we often afford journalists special powers: not turning over notes, revealing sources, etc.
30. I'd say UNETHICAL! It would be the equivalent of my company sending me to for training on a new development language (or updates to a language) and then I turn and use that knowledge I gained from the training to try and make a profit on my own. Or the equivalent of me sitting at my desk in my cubicle and doing development work for outside companies while my company pays me as well - this seems more along with what he did
Posted at 2:57PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by James
33. In my opinion, it is wrong. He should have at least asked for the opportunity to post a blog about the interview from you. His actions make him an opportunist and someone who cannot be trusted , especially by his employer.
Posted at 3:23PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by Search Engine Optimization - Terry Reeves
34. At the very least, the reporter should have asked you if they could blog about the interview.
As a ex-journalist, I know first-hand that writing for a media outlet AND running your own blog can be a delicate balancing act. You get access to interesting people because of your day job, and your employer expects you to use this access to write content from them.
The question is whether this information can be used by the reporter when he's not working for another purpose. Does the employer own the information or does a reporter have the right to re-purpose it?
It's an interesting ethical issue that's not easy to answer.
Posted at 3:50PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by Mark Evans
35. Well, considering that journalistic ethics is an oxymoron, I'm not sure what you expected.
Posted at 4:01PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by Skip
36. I'm not sure what his intentions were, but to be ethical would have been to go out of your way to ensure you have usability rights.
He should have asked you AND the magazine first. That's ethical.
Posted at 4:02PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by Mike Hirst
37. I think it's only ethical if youn don't disclose your relationships to sponsors or people you work for, so as readers don't realize that the story may be slanted by economic interests. I'm a Web 1.0 guy, and censorship of any kind sucks. You, Mark, may have been unhappy, but that's freedom of speech, for you. Love it or hate it, gotta respect it. I'd shudder to think of a world where freedom of speech didn't exist. Love ya!
Posted at 4:23PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by Mark Sandcones
38. The article is titled "Why no rich techie should ever buy a sports team" and the point of the article (aside from another misleading cheap shot about the previous post) is that "new money" is not welcome in sports. Clearly we can debate this guy's writing skills right up there with his ethics.
I don't think there is anything per se in the article that is unethical in context of the interview. Leitch, however, does strike me as just another douche pandering to the lowest common denominator in entertainment.
If anything Mark's mistake was giving this guy any more pub than he deserved.
Posted at 4:36PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by Mike A
39. Did he act ethically towards the magazine? Sure. Freelancers almost always sell "first serial rights", which means after it's published in XYZ magazine, the freelancer can republish the EXACT same article anywhere else.
Did he act ethically towards you? Unless you said otherwise, in advance, yes. Interviewees set limits all the time. This is for background, they will say, or this is for DEEP background, or this may not be attributed to me or my organization, or this may not be attributed to me, but you can attribute it to an insider at this company. Anyone who watch many TV shows knows how THAT work, and as a broadcasting executive, you should be especially aware.
So an interview with the mother superior shows up first in Moody Monthly, and several months later, in Hustler? You might assume that a nun is naive, and argue that the writer should have clarified the situation. But is Mark Cuban naive? I don't buy that. Does he speak without thinking? Quite obviously - and that's part of his charm. Live with it, Mark.
Posted at 4:42PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by Paul Ding
40. Unethical? I'm not sure. I'd like to think that in his position I would have disclosed my intent to reference the interview in another publication. But I'm not everyone (nor am I a journalist).
My question: why, if you knew in advance (as both the GQ and Valleywag pieces state) that he was associated with Deadspin, did you not come out and ask him if he intended to use the interview for Deadspin or any other publication he was associated with? I would think that sort of knowledge would raise a red flag that you would deal with before you continued the interview.
@16: Why do you think the personal/for-profit distinction is no longer valid? When did it stop & why? (I don't necessarily disagree with you, but you gave exactly zero supporting evidence or even theory as to why that might be.)
Posted at 5:03PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by Justin
21. Is he staff or freelance? I don't think it's unusual to repurpose interview material. A freelancer has to get as much mileage as he can. The original magazine got its article, and as long as he doesn't violate the copyright they likely hold on the article, I believe he's free to re-use it. I might inform a source that I'm reusing the material, but only as a courtesy. I would also inform the source at the time of the original interview that although I was interviewing on a specific assignment that I intend to pursue as many publications as possible.
If he's staff, that might be a bit more of an issue, but only because it depends on his relationship to his employer, not to you as the source. Does the employer "own" all interest in his writing or writing that develops out of his work? I'm not sure that it (always) does, though I bet his employer does. I don't think it's unreasonable for him to notify you of the additional use, but I'm not sure that failure to notify is a sign of unethical behavior.
While it's probably not fair, I think in the future the key is for you as a source is to define the terms of use (e.g., I consent to this interview for this specific publication only). Similar to informed consent for scientific research studies. Informed consent for one study does not imply informed consent to perpetual reuse of your data, as much as scientist might prefer.
Posted at 2:24PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by Robert Saunders