Washington Post writer Ian Shapira recently reported a feature on a business guru who consults executives on how to deal with twentysomething employees and clients. When Gawker wrote a snarky post based on (and linking to) his article, he was thrilled at first. Then, prodded by an editor, he looked more closely at the Gawker post and decided that, because it recapitulated his article so throughly, he had been “ripped off,” which he then wrote in a commentary.
In the past few days, this case has caused a media mini-controversy about the value and etiquette of linking and writing posts based on others’ reporting. It’s been seized on as an example of the cluelessness of old media or the fecklessness of new media. Was he robbed? Overreacting? In this specific instance, it seems each side is a little bit wrong.
