Anti-Press Express

The Plattsburgh daily paper recently upgraded its website, making it easier for “interactivity.” As I explained in a previous article, I’m concerned how interactivity could be abused by a publisher, i.e., getting free content from an unsuspecting contributor.

So I clicked around the revised website, looking for any information in regards to copyright and a reader submitting material such as a photo. I went to the multimedia section; nothing there. I went to the registration page where one becomes a member of www.pressrepublican.com . No details on copyright.

I did notice that the registration form included mandatory check boxes. One box you are required to check off was that you had read the Terms Of Use and agreed to abide by them. But there was no link to the Terms.

And where was the copyright info?

I used the site’s SEARCH field and typed in “terms of use.” That took me to a page loaded with legalese –- but I found what I was seeking. Here’s the info that wasn’t that easy to locate, in the section called Public Areas:

“By submitting any information to the Public Areas, you are granting us a perpetual, royalty-free and irrevocable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, create derivative works from, transfer, and sell such information and to use your name and other identifying information you provide in connection with information.”

[ http://www.pressrepublican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/misc?url=/static/forms/termsConditions.htm ]

There are references to the corporation controlling any submitted "information," including letters, reviews, and postings. The term "posting" covers a lot. It suggests that by posting a photo image, that "information" becomes the property of the publisher.

So if you have a potential money making photo or essay, make sure to submit it to this site so that the corporation that runs the newspaper can profit while you get zip. By clicking on that one box, you have given away all rights to your work.

Sucker.

“Even if they had one person in the office, running everything, the corporation would complain about the expense of that person’s salary.”

I overheard that comment the other day. This trend seems to be affecting too many companies. Cut people, cut costs, and make a fat profit for the shareholders.

The problem is that certain businesses –- like book publishers –- did OK if they made an 8 per cent profit for the year. Now the shareholders aren’t satisfied with such a relatively low return. They want more. That’s why the big companies are buying up the small ones, trying to corner the market. In the process less employees are required; the ones that remain are worked like donkeys. And eliminating competition means that captive consumers must depend upon you, an opportunity for bigger gains.

What has happened to book publishers is also happening to many newspapers. A newspaper is expected to perform like a big winner on Wall Street, even if it serves a small city. Every last bit of profit has to be squeezed out. The quality of the product has to be sacrificed for the quantity of profit.

But what can a newspaper do when it’s cut down to the bone?

The local paper charges a fee for obituary notices. As a public service it will provide a basic obit, but if you want to write the long story about the dearly departed, then you have to pay.

And people are apparently willing to spend the money. That’s why you now see long, rambling obits about the deceased who is now in the arms of the Lord after his long battle with an inflamed uvula, his favorite hobby was collecting shreds of used aluminum foil and wrapping them into one big greasy ball, his greatest joy in life was taking his beloved pet, Polonius the Platypus, on camping trips deep into the woods during black fly season, etc., etc. Purple prose that generates greenbacks.

Another way to cut costs is tapping into free content. The local paper has been running a page of photographs depicting soft news events, all submitted by readers. This leads to an interesting question: Why pay a staff photographer to cover an award ceremony when a reader will do it for free?

And if the quality of the image is kinda bad, so what? As long as Aunt Sally can tell that fuzzy blur is her niece, she’s happy.

Under certain circumstances the paper does reimburse freelance photographers. That’s good, but the freelancer should read the fine print in the form he submits for reimbursement. Usually he is signing away all rights to his work. Most of the time, that doesn’t make a difference.

But on those occasions when more income could be realized by ownership of the image, the freelancer is screwed. The paper –- I should say the corporation that runs the paper –- now has full control of the image. If by some incredible chance that pimply-faced teen you shot at a battle of the bands contest grows up to be a famous rock star, don’t expect to make any money from your photo, especially with a major advertising campaign.

Anyway, between readers covering the annual Podunk Picnic and freelancers taking care of the hard news, why bother with a staff photographer? In fact, with so many people running around with cell phone cameras, news images could be handled that way. And if the cell phone photographer wants a bit of money, pay him; it’s still cheaper than having a full time photographer on the staff. Anyway, the corporation will end up with all rights to the image if it’s something important. Work for hire after the fact.

The newspaper can now save money on “art,” so what to do with copy? After all, a reasonably written article involves more than a chimp that can type. Or maybe not. Editing can fix anything.

Consider these buzzwords: “citizen journalism” and “interactive news media” or “interactivity.”

Citizen journalism refers to individuals working outside the mainstream, providing information and viewpoints ignored or shunned by corporate media. With no oversight by higher-ups and no concern for the bottom line, a blogger or zinester can bring attention to stories that should be told.

Interactive news media is the concept that a mainstream journalist entity can work with its readers/viewers, a two-way channel where the audience is involved in the creation of stories and the selection of topics.

The Times Union newspaper in Albany, New York, has launched a program called TURN (Times Union Reader Network). According to an article published on May 8 (“We’ll offer you a TURN,” Page B7), TURN allows “reporters and editors to solicit information and opinion from readers via email.”

According to the editors it’s all part of the newspaper’s effort to become more “interactive.” As the article explains further:

“Sometimes the Times Union might ask for feedback on the newspaper or its coverage. Other times, the Times Union may ask for story ideas or referrals for stories. An example: Do you know someone who collects classic cars?”

Feedback can be good –- but isn’t that what Letters to the Editor is supposed to handle? Referrals are OK –- but why should the reader come up with story ideas? Isn’t that the job of the newspaper’s staff? Or maybe someone is trying to cut costs?

One could argue that the Times Union is seeking free content. In the next paragraph, the editors add:

“TURN also can be used to solicit readers’ comments on news events, such as the death of a public figure, or policy issues. Some viewpoints might be published.”

And how many free viewpoints will be substituted for a paid columnist?

Is this the beginning of the corporate corruption of “interactivity” and “citizen journalism?” Whenever mutation occurs, the dominant species, if it can’t destroy the new life form, will subsume it. With its influence, mainstream media can change the meanings of words, making the original definitions invalid, inoperable. Maybe I’ll overhear this comment in the near future:

“Yes, I’m a citizen journalist. I emailed my opinion to the paper on whether or not the mayor should be re-elected. Now the editor changed a few words and what I wrote originally was a little harsh, but most of what I said was the same, even though I was against the mayor running again because of his corporate connections, and what ended up in the paper seemed to support him, but at least I got my own viewpoint published.

“Payment? No, I don’t get paid. A citizen journalist is beyond such stuff. We write to get the truth out.”

Letter writhing?

Don’t look at me. That term was used in a recent letter to the editor of the local (news)paper. The paper had published an opinion piece by a college professor, an essay that compelled a reader to respond.

The outraged reader challenged the left-wing views set forth by the college professor. He compared liberal professors to bovines stricken with mad cow disease, claiming that such professors all suffered from a brain infection that incapacitated rational thought.

In the opening paragraph the reader said he would try to be gentle, but “sometimes the letter writhing [sic] version of rough sex is the only thing that gets the juices flowing.”

(At least this reader isn’t homophobic. After all, he wants to engage in the expository equivalent of “rough sex” with another man, in this case, the college professor.)

With his cup running over with conservative juices, the reader said liberal college professors shouldn’t teach their opinions as facts to inexperienced youths. After all, young students might believe the professor knew the difference between “something and Shineola.”

Wrapping up his attack by piling on more “something,” the reader summed up by stating:

“As for the wimp-wristed peacenik nonsense: The graveyard is the only place on Earth where actual peace can be found; life is a dynamic struggle, not a placid nap. Professor, if you want America to be destroyed, then be a ‘peace activist,’ but if you want to survive, be a man.”

It takes a real man to writhe a letter like that.