Since you asked, Gatehouse

January 27, 2009 by Jeff Jarvis
, ,

Yes, I think you’re stupid. And dangerous. And doomed.

  • http://www.our-hometown.com Stephen Larson

    Geez Jeff, you seem a little upset.

  • http://blogpeoria.com Billy Dennis

    Jeff is just POed because GateHouse won. As they should in this instance.

  • invitedmedia

    “won”???

    that SETTLEMENT and .12 will get you two ghse.pk shares.

    such a deal.

  • http://ifyouwriteit.blogspot.com/ Descartes

    Linking is what the web has become all about, the idea that anyone would not want links for The New York Times is kind of silly.

  • http://wickedlocal.com/newton Greg Reibman

    This case was never about linking. The settlement allows for linking.

    • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

      That may be your company line. But it is bull. This is absolutely about the ability to quote and link and aggregate and curate and automate and support journalism at its source with links in the link economy. You and your company and bosses do not understand that and are trying to destroy that. That is why you are dangerous.

      • http://www.our-hometown.com Stephen Larson

        Jeff, you really are upset about something and it seems personal. How exactly does this affect you to make you so upset?

      • http://wickedlocal.com/newton Greg Reibman

        Please read Dan Kennedy’s piece for the Guardian and Bill Mitchell’s piece for Poynter Online. Both point and link to the report of Professor Doug Lichtman, submitted on GateHouse’s behalf and part of the public record of the case, for a better understanding of what the case was really about, and what it was not.

  • Pingback: jardenberg kommenterar - 2009-01-28 | jardenberg unedited

  • Pingback: Links: Davis vs. Jarvis « Wir sprechen Online.

  • janice

    omg, I actually read the agreement and lichtmans paper.

    What a load of hyperinflated crap.

    I’m hoping that Gatehouse manages to implement RSS feeds without headlines and ledes. That would be fitting.

  • http://medianation.blogspot.com Dan Kennedy

    Jeff: You seem convinced that the case was about linking. Much as I don’t like argument by analogy, I can’t do this without offering a hypothetical that takes the linking question out of it.

    Let’s say the Boston Herald devoted pages two and three every day to news briefs consisting of verbatim headlines and ledes from 60 or 70 percent of the stories in that day’s Boston Globe, and somehow figured out a way to get that print product out the door very soon after that day’s Globe becomes available. Full credit is given. Hell, let’s give it a standing head: “The Herald’s Concise Guide to Today’s Globe.”

    Do you think folks at the Globe would be upset? Do you think they should be? Why or why not?

  • http://blogpeoria.com Billy Dennis

    On my blog, I link to articles from GateHouse publications on a daily basis. Most times, the comments I make about GateHouse are hugely critical. I’m no HateHouse media apologist.

    I’m getting I’ve sent hundreds of thousands of visitors to GateHouse over the years.

    This case is so NOT about linking. It’s about the format in which the links are presented: In the form of a portal page that competes with GateHouse’s own portal pages, targeting the same eyeballs and trying to capture the same ad revenue.

    I had had the greatest resepct for Jarvis. He has shaped my thinking about the viability of the Internet versus print. He taught me the value of transparency.

    His blind spot about this causes me to re-evaluate my high opinion.

  • iphoney

    jeff, we’ll take you seriously as soon as you and the new media numskulls figure how newspapers make money online. can you get back to us on that. huh? ok then. pretty easy to talk about the death of newspapers in the lecture hall, but what have you really done?

  • Pingback: Printed Matters » 10 reasons news sites should not use paywalls