September 25, 2007
Nicholas Bakalar and the New York Times threaten bookofjoe
Just in, the pretty straightforward email above.
The back story: Last Friday, September 22, 2007, I featured Bakalar's New York Times article of September 18, 2007 about psychiatry and religion.
Here is the first sentence of that post: "Long story short: 'Of all medical specialties, psychiatrists are the least religious,' wrote Nicholas Bakalar in a story in the September 18, 2007 New York Times Science section; his piece follows."
The link to the original Times article was included.
Bakalar's article followed.
What do you think?
Should I kowtow to the Gray Lady (and her henchman Bakalar), supposed bastion of First Amendment rights and free speech — including the doctrine of Fair Use?
Or should I stand firm?
joehead Nation, now is the time to make yourselves heard.
Here's Times Public Editor's Clark Hoyt's email: [email protected]
Here's Times Executive Editor Bill Keller's email: [email protected]
Do what's right.
September 25, 2007 at 12:01 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nicholas Bakalar and the New York Times threaten bookofjoe:
The new york who?
Another (the utlimate?) greedy luser lamestream rag?
Pathetic. I'd say "screw 'em" but it seems the lamestream media does a quality job in only one respect - screwing themselves (and the country).
Posted by: fox3 | Sep 26, 2007 1:09:45 PM
Oy NYT: way to go to promote readership! Greedy bastards.
Posted by: Katie | Sep 26, 2007 11:31:18 AM
The Time mag wants $2k for permission for a 1972 reprint
Posted by: JON | Sep 25, 2007 6:30:54 PM
The only thing the NYT vs. US does is to show hypocrisy, but in a limited sort of way.
For instance, with the first amendment, rights to speech, you get into copyright...*ANYTHING* produced by the gov't is supposed to be uncopyrightable. Beyond that, reporting on top secret, uncopyrightable, works -- something that the public has a right to know and actually not secret any more since it is out now (especially to foreign nationals...they are presumably the only reason to keep secrets because a free gov't wouldn't hide anything from their own citizens if their knowledge was the major reason for concealing the info).
But as a content creator, I sorta fall on the side of the NYT on this. Wholesale sampling of content that is designed to drive commerce kills the reason they are there. It is why in this day and age we are still supposed to cite info as concisely as possible -- even in academia (though I almost ALWAYS add PDFs of the supporting papers to my own work, and forward these as freely as possible when asked...hey! I never said I wasn't a hypocrite).
I've also worked out of academia where I've seen my works posted out of context and in diminutive formats, often out of the realm that I wished them to be used -- and I didn't like it. Again, hypocritically. I understand the NYT's position even as a consumer I prefer it to be as free as possible.
Posted by: clifyt | Sep 25, 2007 1:47:39 PM
Screw them with your biggest needle. I would think that with the ever decreasing market for newspapers in general, I would think that the Times would welcome and kiss the butt of a carnivorous newspaper reader like yourself and your efforts to "pass it on" free of charge.
Posted by: Matt | Sep 25, 2007 12:25:06 PM
If you get locked up, I don't have the funds to post bail. Humphrey might.
Posted by: caroline | Sep 25, 2007 12:15:40 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.