Since the conversation on this topic was interesting, I thought it would be appropriate to add some more information and answer where I stand on the question. After all, I asked the question in my previous blog post, I didn't answer it.
First , my opening comments as Will and I sat down for the interview. (these come courtesy of Will in an email to me about this subject)
>> WL: Okay. I want to start off actually, this is going to be
>> just a big Q&A, pretty much straight up and everything. So I want to
>> start ...
>> MC: This is just for GQ now.
>> WL: Just for GQ, not for Deadspin. No Deadspin stuff, and no
>> ... yeah, I have the journalist hat on. And I have the journalist
>> hat on at Deadspin, too, but anyway, let's ... another debate for
>> another time.
>> MC: We won't call that journalism.
>> WL: Another debate for another time.
So i made it clear that I wanted no association with his blog at all.
Does his writing a piece about me with a link back to the very item that he knew I wanted nothing to do with constitute a lack of ethics ? I think so. It certainly is a major fuck you.
Does making the following comment "Cuban was not amused and spent most of the interview accusing Deadspin of being the Inside Edition of sports. So that was fun.) " diminish the integrity of the interview itself ? Probably not, but to some readers of ValleyWag and GQ, it could. Unethical ? Probably not. Stupid business, definitely.
For the record, I certainly didnt spend most of the interview talking about his blog, but I certainly had fun at his expense from time to time and I never said it was off the record. Although , again, this was a GQ interview. Setup and arranged with the magazine with no consideration on my part as to who would do the piece until Will showed up.
Which leads to my conclusion about all of this.
Its my fault. I was stupid to think that the guy who runs Deadspin could stop being the guy who runs Deadspin. I should have asked for GQ to send someone else. Better yet, I should have stuck to my rules and only do interviews via email.
Is this ethical - Part 2
Recent Posts
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. Mark, again, I think you're missing the point here. The content of the interview WAS and REMAINS solely for GQ. As Will has pointed out in his subsequent responses, he merely quoted the interview on Valleywag - and to extend that, I should point out that Deadspin simply alerted its readership to the existence of this kerfuffle.
If there were a blog bill of rights, the first stanza would deal with the inalienable right to take any and everything to the most meta level possible. Writing about stuff one wrote about is a mainstay of non-fiction - and do you think for one second that if you HAD conducted the interview via email that that would have insulated you from Will writing about that series of correspondence?
PS - Nice, largely ignored, bitch slap of Tony Snow on Bill Maher. I noticed he didn't really change the substance of his argument when you informed him that in fact you ARE qualified to have a "technical conversation". Bravo.
3. One thing I have learned about many of the young people of today, they are very short sided. The future does not exist to them except how they play it out in their minds.
Basically, many are complete idiots that really have never been taught right from wrong and therefore wrong is what they see it to be.
What he did was wrong. You have learned a valuable lesson. I would imagine these two posts are not going to help much with his future but I am sure he thinks this is the best thing that ever could have happened to his "career".
I guess he would be right in case his future bosses are as clueless as he is.
Posted at 4:41PM on Jan 24th 2008 by Search Engine Optimization - Terry Reeves
4. Act, first of all, the article is most likely not WL's IP. He was likely contracted as work-for-hire, which means the article and the rights belong to GQ.
Microbano, WL didn't just quote the article, he provided extra insight ("Cuban was not amused and spent most of the interview accusing Deadspin of being the Inside Edition of sports. So that was fun."). That's information that didn't appear in the original article. Not the same as just linking or quoting.
Add it all up, it's a crappy thing to do, and unethical. He said one thing ("It's just for GQ") and did another.
5. Ironic that this post itself gives more traffic to the very site you wouldn't want to give traffic to.
Posted at 4:51PM on Jan 24th 2008 by Jimmy Cheng
7. under your thinking, will was allowed to interview you for gq and never mention it again on his site, or anywhere outside the realm of gq. wow, that's remarkable. i didn't realize a gq interview was so top secret. i guess he should've kept the details locked up next to the kennedy assassination and area 51 pictures. so if seymour hersh interviews osama bin laden for the new yorker, he can't talk about it after the publication on nbc nightly news. interesting.
your interview was done months ago, and he never used any of the questions, answers, etc. on his site. stop your whining. no malfeasance was done.
Posted at 5:04PM on Jan 24th 2008 by jrg
8. Actually Mike, the context in which Will provided "extra insight" was Cuban himself responding to an earlier post on Deadspin - not the sort of thing that would be easy or apporpriate to insert into a GQ piece. However, JUST the sort of thing that would be appropriate to mention on Deadspin. However, since Will had agreed not to post anything about this on Deadspin, it ended up on a sister publication - Valleywag. Furthermore, Cuban isn't disputing the fact that there was talk during the course of the interview about Deadspin and its relative merits. If he didn't want it to show up on Deadspin, he should have done what famous people do when they do not wish what they say to be publicized - kept his mouth shut.
The mistake Cuban - and you Mike - is making here is thinking for one second that "journalism" (you can call it good, you can call it bad - it doesn't matter for our purposes) should have anything at all to do with "business". Journalists themselves thinking it does it what is killing journalism and LOOOOOONG ago killed sports journalism.
Will was offering fresh perspectives on a public figure we the public wish perspectives on. He did so close to - but not out of - the boundaries of engagement as agreed to by the subject. I too admire Mark Cuban, but he is behaving like a petulant child here.
9. Last night on the TV series Criminal Minds they had a lady agent who was using a serial killer to boost her career and get the attention brought to her with his killings and his capture - given this is a TV show BUT how is what Will did any different? He is using an interview he did for GQ (and Mark clearly made it clear that it was just for GQ), GQ paid for his travel and everything then he (Will) goes off and uses his interview with Mark to help promote himself and get himself in the "spotlight". Sorry, but in my book that is unethical. A man (or woman) ask you something and makes themselves clear and you give him a answer and make yourself clear then turn around and do the opposite - not only is that unethical but also unmoral in my book!!!
Posted at 5:40PM on Jan 24th 2008 by James
11. You said you did not want this used on Deadspin. Give me a link to show where Will Leitch used any part of that interview on Deadspin. Until you do, WL did nothing wrong.
Posted at 6:03PM on Jan 24th 2008 by Craig
12.
I don't know, it appears we have incompatible definitions of ethics.
If I ask someone not to do something, and they agree not to, and do so
anyway, how is that ethical? Now wonder we're in trouble.
BTW, I don't believe it's stupid to trust someone. We generally tend
to trust a person when they give us their word. That's normal
behavior, I hope.
13. This is turning into a real tempest in a teapot.
Posted at 6:28PM on Jan 24th 2008 by Billionaire Strategies
14. Mark - get over it. Will also wrote you a note of apology... but I don't see THAT posted on your blog. Who's being unethical now?
He didn't use any new material for his blog post... and they weren't even on Deadspin.
Posts like this are part of the reason I quit reading your blog. You make a mountain out of a mole hill when America quits paying you attention for 5 minutes.
Go buy something.
Posted at 7:00PM on Jan 24th 2008 by Landon Howell
15. Yeah, I was with you before, but in this context, not so much...
Leitch's comments for Valley Wag seem OK. It was an INTERVIEW on another site, he took one quote from you and expanded it to an entirely differently concept that the article for GQ.
It was an annecdote from one of his many experiences.
And you have to note that he DIDN'T use anything from your interview on Deadspin. He did an interview for another site.
I've gotta go with non-unethical here.
(Note entirely clean, but certainly not unethical)
Posted at 7:03PM on Jan 24th 2008 by FrankTheTank
16. Mark -
I love deadspin and I respect you as the smartest business person there is. I don't know here, I'd say that if I were interviewing with WL, I'd expect WL to post it on every media outlet there is. Just like if I were interviewing with Mike Tirico, I'd expect for him to talk about it on Monday Night Football, basketball programs, his radio show, golf, and anything else he is involved with.
Also, if you answers were true for GQ, why weren't they true for deadspin?
17. Great point Ryan.
Posted at 7:17PM on Jan 24th 2008 by Landon Howell
18. He said he wasn't going to use it for his blog and he did. He lied. That in itself is unethical.
Posted at 7:30PM on Jan 24th 2008 by Rebeccalee Coventry
19. Rebeccalee - where did he use it on Deadspin? Just because Deadspin and Valleywag are Gawker Media blogs doesn't make Valleywag "his blog". The only mention of any of this on Deadspin is a little three sentence mention since commenters and readers where mentioning it already and a link to both Mark's blog on the topic and the Valleywag post he wrote. He didn't lie about not using any of it on Deadspin and then doing so.
Posted at 7:36PM on Jan 24th 2008 by Schrute Bucks
20. I'm on the fence on this one. When you set ground rules for an interview, they should be adhered to to the strictest degree. But I don't think you should resolve to only interview via e-mail. You might perceive it as an advantage (controlled responses, written record, etc.), but the writer may only get a one-dimensional view. If there is one thing you are not, it is one-dimensional. So is that really an advantage?
Sometimes you will get burned -- you're a public figure. But I think the sum tota of the coverage of you, your brand, your team, will reflect acurately the image you are attempting to project.
1. My friend, this all reeks of a childish immaturity. Will Leitch made reference to you (in a positive light, nonetheless) in his book, and this reference was posted on Valley. He quoted an article that he himself wrote, and that is his intellectual property. Why is this a problem? Because you dislike the blog he posted it on? That's ludicrous.
This has nothing to do with 'ethics.' It has everything to do with some outlandish personal vendetta you have against Deadspin. If you complained about every journalist-- official of blogger-- who ever said anything about you, you spend the rest of your life complaining.
Bluntly, why such a stick up your ass?
Posted at 4:27PM on Jan 24th 2008 by Act