Joho the Blog » [2b2k] Is HuffPo killing the news?

[2b2k] Is HuffPo killing the news?

Mathew Ingram has a provocative post at Gigaom defending HuffingtonPost and its ilk from the charge that they over-aggregate news to the point of thievery. I’m not completely convinced by Mathew’s argument, but that’s because I’m not completely convinced by any argument about this.

It’s a very confusing issue if you think of it from the point of view of who owns what. So, take the best of cases, in which HuffPo aggregates from several sources and attributes the reportage appropriately. It’s important to take a best case since we’ll all agree that if HuffPo lifts an article en toto without attribution, it’s simple plagiarism. But that doesn’t tell us if the best cases are also plagiarisms. To make it juicier, assume that in one of these best cases, HuffPo relies heavily on one particular source article. It’s still not a slam dunk case of theft because in this example HuffPo is doing what we teach every school child to do: If you use a source, attribute it.

But, HuffPo isn’t a schoolchild. It’s a business. It’s making money from those aggregations. Ok, but we are fine in general with people selling works that aggregate and attribute. Non-fiction publishing houses that routinely sell books that have lots of footnotes are not thieves. And, as Mathew points out, HuffPo (in its best cases) is adding value to the sources it aggregates.

But, HuffPo’s policy even in its best case can enable it to serve as a substitute for the newspapers it’s aggregating. It thus may be harming the sources its using.

And here we get to what I think is the most important question. If you think about the issue in terms of theft, you’re thrown into a moral morass where the metaphors don’t work reliably. Worse, you may well mix in legal considerations that are not only hard to apply, but that we may not want to apply given the new-ness (itself arguable) of the situation.

But, I find that I am somewhat less conflicted about this if I think about it terms of what direction we’d like to nudge our world. For example, when it comes to copyright I find it helpful to keep in mind that a world full of music and musicians is better than a world in which music is rationed. When it comes to news aggregation, many of us will agree that a world in which news is aggregated and linked widely through the ecosystem is better than one in which you—yes, you, since a rule against HuffPo aggregating sources wouldn’t apply just to HuffPo— have to refrain from citing a source for fear that you’ll cross some arbitrary limit. We are a healthier society if we are aggregating, re-aggregating, contextualizing, re-using, evaluating, and linking to as many sources as we want.

Now, beginning by thinking where we want the world to be —which, by the way, is what this country’s Founders did when they put copyright into the Constitution in the first place: “to promote the progress of science and useful arts”—is useful but limited, because to get the desired situation in which we can aggregate with abandon, we need the original journalistic sources to survive. If HuffPo and its ilk genuinely are substituting for newspapers economically, then it seems we can’t get to where we want without limiting the right to aggregate.

And that’s why I’m conflicted. I don’t believe that even if all rights to aggregate were removed (which no one is proposing), newspapers would bounce back. At this point, I’d guess that the Net generation is primarily interested in news mainly insofar as its woven together and woven into the larger fabric. Traditional reportage is becoming valued more as an ingredient than a finished product. It’s the aggregators—the HuffingtonPosts of the world, but also the millions of bloggers, tweeters and retweeters, Facebook likers and Google plus-ers, redditors and slashdotters, BoingBoings and Ars Technicas— who are spreading the news by adding value to it. News now only moves if we’re interested enough in it to pass it along. So, I don’t know how to solve journalism’s deep problems with its business models, but I can’t imagine that limiting the circulation of ideas will help, since in this case, the circulatory flow is what’s keeping the heart beating.

 


[A few minutes later] Mathew has also posted what reads like a companion piece, about how Amazon’s Kindle Singles are supporting journalism.

4 Responses to “[2b2k] Is HuffPo killing the news?”

  1. at this point, of human density, of hyperconnectivity, i think it is difficult to make the point that copyright has much to do with “to promote the progress of science and useful arts” …

    it seems to now have the opposite effect…

    huffpo and ilk are recursions, filters of filters, curations of curations … this extends to infinity .. the thing to understand, so-called original sources are themselves curations, filters, povs and perhaps there decline from a business pov is that very abstraction.disconnection from actual reality.

  2. Gregory, not only do I agree with you about copyright, that’s why I posted the Constitutional language. As Jamie Boyle says (although I think he may have cited someone else(!)), no known incentive has caused dead authors to produce more works.

  3. This little piece, …journalism’s deep problems with its business models, gave me pause. Did Journalism ever have a business model other than going to work for a newspaper? Somewhere in dim history it probably did. However, news distribution was the business model of newspapers. That model is going, going… Journalists are working to adapt to this new reality far better than the old distribution models. HuffPo is only one representative of the change.

  4. [n.b. this is a brief blog comment, not a Ph.D. thesis - it does not delve into every detail and nuance, it is a sketch not blueprint]

    The overall issue is that HuffPuff demonstrates the failure of the attention-guru solution to funding journalism, which is supporting oneself by monetizing attention, Attention, ATTENTION. Roughly, if business X does journalism and tries to get attention, while business Y concentrates on only attention and “aggregates”, then from winner-take-all and “power-law” network effects, Y will completely swamp X. Oh, Y will credit or link X, and tell X to be happy from all the traffic Y is sending its way, but that doesn’t pay the bills.

    There is no answer to this which is easy, and even worse, marketable on the guru gigs.

Leave a Reply


Web Joho only

Comments (RSS).  RSS icon

Switch to our mobile site