This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2014/jun/22/mail-online-copy-australian-martin-clarke

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Who will produce stories for the Mail to copy if it drives its rivals to the wall? Who will produce stories for the Mail to copy if it drives its rivals to the wall?
(2 months later)
The new Australian controversy over Mail Online’s form of journalism – or, more accurately, churnalism – is but the latest instance of a long-running debate since the dawn of the digital revolution. The moment that articles appear on a news website they become available for copying or repurposing, to use the jargon. Paywalls are no barrier because it isn’t much of an additional cost to become a subscriber.The new Australian controversy over Mail Online’s form of journalism – or, more accurately, churnalism – is but the latest instance of a long-running debate since the dawn of the digital revolution. The moment that articles appear on a news website they become available for copying or repurposing, to use the jargon. Paywalls are no barrier because it isn’t much of an additional cost to become a subscriber.
Pictures are protected by copyright. Words are not. Lifting lengthy passages can be regarded as plagiarism but most of the magpie-like “borrowers” take care to rewrite. No story can be protected. Scoops by one are scooped up by others within minutes. The term “exclusive” already has an archaic feel to it, a memory of inky days gone by. But we need to remember, at least in the UK context, our pre-internet history.Pictures are protected by copyright. Words are not. Lifting lengthy passages can be regarded as plagiarism but most of the magpie-like “borrowers” take care to rewrite. No story can be protected. Scoops by one are scooped up by others within minutes. The term “exclusive” already has an archaic feel to it, a memory of inky days gone by. But we need to remember, at least in the UK context, our pre-internet history.
Copy theft had long been a dishonourable tradition when I arrived in Fleet Street in 1969. After the first editions landed in popular paper newsrooms, it was understood that stories carried by rivals would be plundered. There were few, if any, complaints about the practice. No editor thought to shout about competitors stealing work that might have taken his or her paper’s journalists hours to research and compile. It was accepted practice, part of a nightly game, and the reason why some papers produced so-called spoof first editions to try to protect their exclusives.Copy theft had long been a dishonourable tradition when I arrived in Fleet Street in 1969. After the first editions landed in popular paper newsrooms, it was understood that stories carried by rivals would be plundered. There were few, if any, complaints about the practice. No editor thought to shout about competitors stealing work that might have taken his or her paper’s journalists hours to research and compile. It was accepted practice, part of a nightly game, and the reason why some papers produced so-called spoof first editions to try to protect their exclusives.
The Sun, Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid flagship, was no different in this respect, so it may well strike people as ironic that his company has been particularly outspoken about the re-use of its articles since the rise of the internet. It led the way in complaining about the links provided by Google News. In February, News UK’s chief executive, Mike Darcey, opened hostilities with Mail Online by saying “it shouldn’t be confused with a business based on professional journalism. It is largely a redistributor, rather than a generator, copying and rewriting content from social media sites, and from other traditional news outlets, including the Sun”.The Sun, Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid flagship, was no different in this respect, so it may well strike people as ironic that his company has been particularly outspoken about the re-use of its articles since the rise of the internet. It led the way in complaining about the links provided by Google News. In February, News UK’s chief executive, Mike Darcey, opened hostilities with Mail Online by saying “it shouldn’t be confused with a business based on professional journalism. It is largely a redistributor, rather than a generator, copying and rewriting content from social media sites, and from other traditional news outlets, including the Sun”.
So it was hardly a surprise that News Corp took issue with Mail Online’s activities after its launch in Australia. Murdoch’s national title, the Australian, has led the charge, accusing Mail Online of theft, breach of copyright, plagiarism and “parasitical practices”.So it was hardly a surprise that News Corp took issue with Mail Online’s activities after its launch in Australia. Murdoch’s national title, the Australian, has led the charge, accusing Mail Online of theft, breach of copyright, plagiarism and “parasitical practices”.
The dispute briefly became farcical last week when a media correspondent for the Australian tangled with Mail Online’s publisher, Martin Clarke, at the Cannes Lions advertising festival.The dispute briefly became farcical last week when a media correspondent for the Australian tangled with Mail Online’s publisher, Martin Clarke, at the Cannes Lions advertising festival.
In a seafront version of doorstepping, the reporter, Darren Davidson, sought an interview with Clarke at a party. Davidson accused a Mail Online executive of grabbing his iPad, which was later returned to him. So the expense of sending Davidson halfway round the world in an unlikely attempt to secure an interview paid off with a story, a video clip and a smidgeon of embarrassment for the Mail.In a seafront version of doorstepping, the reporter, Darren Davidson, sought an interview with Clarke at a party. Davidson accused a Mail Online executive of grabbing his iPad, which was later returned to him. So the expense of sending Davidson halfway round the world in an unlikely attempt to secure an interview paid off with a story, a video clip and a smidgeon of embarrassment for the Mail.
Meanwhile, News Corp has threatened legal action. Although Australian lawyers are generally sceptical about the Mail being brought to book, legality is arguably less relevant for journalists than ethics.Meanwhile, News Corp has threatened legal action. Although Australian lawyers are generally sceptical about the Mail being brought to book, legality is arguably less relevant for journalists than ethics.
The moment Clarke took charge of Mail Online he had a clear vision of what it could achieve, a vision that had not occurred to competitors such as the Sun, Daily Mirror and Daily Express. He put aside the editorial agendas of the print Mail titles. Their copy could be repurposed simply enough, but he would give added value. In the age of celebrity, he unashamedly set out to satisfy the interests of people consumed by the activities of the famous, supplying photos and copy.The moment Clarke took charge of Mail Online he had a clear vision of what it could achieve, a vision that had not occurred to competitors such as the Sun, Daily Mirror and Daily Express. He put aside the editorial agendas of the print Mail titles. Their copy could be repurposed simply enough, but he would give added value. In the age of celebrity, he unashamedly set out to satisfy the interests of people consumed by the activities of the famous, supplying photos and copy.
He went further still in order to ensure that Mail Online would become a one-stop shop for casual news browsers. He ensured that every half-decent human i interest or celebrity story in every other newspaper and popular magazine would also appear on the Mail site. Everything became fair game to attract the widest possible audience. In the digital world’s count-the-click environment, Mail Online reigns supreme, boasting 172 million unique-monthly browsers in May. Clarke’s strategy has worked. He went further still in order to ensure that Mail Online would become a one-stop shop for casual news browsers. He ensured that every half-decent human i interest or celebrity story in every other newspaper and popular magazine would also appear on the Mail site. Everything became fair game to attract the widest possible audience. In the digital world’s count-the-click environment, Mail Online reigns supreme, boasting 172 million unique-monthly browsers in May. Clarke’s strategy has worked.
As with past Mail projects, he was given the necessary backing and resources. He was also able to hire an editorial team cheaply because it’s a buyers’ market for publishers seeking young journalists nowadays. After early complaints about copy theft, he introduced rules. The originating publication must get a mention high up in the Mail’s rewrite and there must also be a hyperlink to the original.As with past Mail projects, he was given the necessary backing and resources. He was also able to hire an editorial team cheaply because it’s a buyers’ market for publishers seeking young journalists nowadays. After early complaints about copy theft, he introduced rules. The originating publication must get a mention high up in the Mail’s rewrite and there must also be a hyperlink to the original.
But this is fake etiquette aimed at providing cover for what is, essentially, journalistic grand larceny. It is also, once taken to its logical conclusion, self-defeating. If Mail Online drives other publishers to the wall, where will it get its copy in future?But this is fake etiquette aimed at providing cover for what is, essentially, journalistic grand larceny. It is also, once taken to its logical conclusion, self-defeating. If Mail Online drives other publishers to the wall, where will it get its copy in future?