Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
This happened a while back (according to the Column - see below - last Friday) but I was offline all weekend with the nieces. Eileen Donoghue’s campaign has posted their donors, with a prominent link in the menu at the top, and in PDF format unencrypted and searchable. (OK, browser spellcheck, when is “searchable” going to be a real word??). You can find it here.
Something of note, in general - a very large portion of Chris Doherty’s donors are out of district. By contrast, Donoghue has a lot more in district. Take from that what you will, but I tend to prefer a candidate who feels beholden to the actual constituents they will be representing, in general.
Also, of note, the American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts, which includes the United Teachers of Lowell, has endorsed Eileen Donoghue. It rather makes sense, given she has a history working on the School Committee as its chair and working at issues teachers care about.
—
I have to question both the legality and the tactics of posting the entire Sun Sunday Column on Chris Doherty’s website.
First, there’s a fair use problem with taking the entire thing wholesale and posting it. Unless the Doherty campaign got permission from the Sun, they basically are stealing the work. Fair use generally says quoting a portion of the work for commentary might be fair use - though that even is no guarantee. You’ll note that on Donoghue’s site, they take a short summary and link to the real article in question. This has the bad side effect of sending the user to dead links since Sun articles expire after two weeks, but it’s most definitely a very safe and sound way to legally talk about media writing about Eileen Donoghue.
The Doherty violation of copyright is particularly egregious because The Column isn’t even online for free consumption on the Sun’s own website, so they are depriving the Sun of that “exclusivity” as well. (This, notwithstanding the idea that I think it was a bad idea to firewall the Column in the first place. I will say that this is the first time I’ve read the Column in like, ages.)
Second, the tactical mistake. The Column piece is posted in its entirety. As in, the parts that have nothing to do with the race (St. Hilaire, etc). So not only really going all the way on the copyright infringement, but also, relevancy. Why would you post something not relevant to your campaign on your site? Just quote the stuff that makes sense. If you’re going to steal something verbatim. Weird.
Thirdly, the Column isn’t all complimentary of Doherty (in fact, it’s rather even handed in the content). For instance, it calls him out for his last minute posting of his donors to be able to use that in the debate. It also states that Doherty, by not losing, but drawing even, made him the “winner” of the debate. Just what I want to tout about my candidate…”Chris Doherty…he didn’t lose!” Okaaay. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. I probably myself (if I were campaign media person) wouldn’t even quote it at all unless it said something like “slam dunk for Doherty!” or something like that.
But hey, what do I know? I’ve only been posting stuff on the internets for over five years…eight if you count the years I’ve been building websites and helping clients write for the web.
[powered by WordPress.]
42 queries. 0.664 seconds
August 24th, 2010 at 7:57 am
Thanks for the news about the AFTM Donoghue endorsement. When I don’t have time to do a lot of my own research, I sometimes look to see which orgs have endorsed which candidates…and then often can’t find the info without in-depth searching. I am always surprised that candidates don’t have an easy-to-find “Endorsements” link on their web pages. Does anyone have a straight forward list of the other Donoghue and Doherty endorsements? Thanks!
August 24th, 2010 at 8:14 am
That column is right there on the Sun website.. didn’t you look at the link on the bottom of Doherty’s page?
And usually, the Sun doesn’t mind about copying articles (as long as you link back to them.. I use the alinks plugin to create links automatically for key phrases). If they do, they let you know. I think Doherty could have just clipped out the few appropriate paragraphs myself.
Then again, you assume that he did not ask permission and then attack him for an assumed indiscretion.
But that’s just your way.
August 24th, 2010 at 8:47 am
When one does get permission, one usually says so in the cite. Maybe you don’t, but I guess that’s just your way.
August 24th, 2010 at 9:04 am
Hey Shawn, did you miss the part where I said, “Unless the Doherty campaign got permission from the Sun, they basically are stealing the work.”
I put in the caveat, but maybe reading the full post just isn’t your way?
August 24th, 2010 at 9:14 am
By the way, 1) I didn’t realize the Sun had put the Column back up on the website? and 2) that link at the bottom that isn’t a link (as in not hyperlinked) is likely, given the manner in which it sits at the end (not hyperlinked) and the type of link it is, is from the copy-paste forced-attribution the Sun has on its website. Try copying and pasting any of part or whole of any article and you get that. It’s a sort of fail-safe for copying from their website (not that it can’t be deleted from your paste). So it’s not like they went out of their way to link it (it’s automatic with any copy-paste). 3) That doesn’t make it kosher - and just because the Sun sort of doesn’t bother to assert its rights doesn’t mean they don’t have them, and that it’s just not cool to rip off an entire article like that. I NEVER do, not in anything I post. I quote as little as I possibly can, for purposes of commentary, and link back. That’s the real way you’re supposed to do it. If you’re going to want it on your website, you should ask.
Mr. is right - if you link with permission, you generally say at the top “reprinted/reposted with permission” - this was pretty obviously a simple copy-paste lift job, with the link at the end appended automatically by the Sun’s website javascript. As I’ve said in the past, I don’t think much of the outfit handling his website - they are obviously not that great at what they do (or they’d have researched better security).
And of course, it doesn’t negate at all the fact that it’s questionable in the first place…certainly to lift the entire thing which is mostly irrelevant, and really, the parts that are relevant are not exactly ringing endorsements anyway. I’m allowed to question the wisdom, right? Or is that off limits now too?
August 24th, 2010 at 9:23 am
LowellforFree - I think generally both have been posting them as press releases and not much else. I guess at the beginning of a race, it’s hard to have a whole page with only a few endorsements, until enough of them come out to make a difference.
Eileen’s announcements can be found on her press releases page, and Doherty’s, well, good luck…I think you have to scroll through the stuff on his home page. I don’t see a press releases page per se.
Looks like so far:
For Donoghue, we have Lowell Firefighters Union, Sheila Capone-Wulsin (former executive director of the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus), and the American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts.
For Doherty, it appears to be, Former state Rep. Geoff Hall of Westford, the Lowell Police Association, and the Massachusetts Teachers Association.
I always liked the idea of a list of individual endorsements (prominent and non prominent citizens of the district alike) on candidates’ sites but neither is doing that.
I expect with so little time left in the race, we’re either going to see a rash of organizational endorsements, or else, not that many will bother to endorse, which is rather too bad. Endorsement processes are hard work, though!
BTW interesting site you have there, I’ll link it somewhere.
August 24th, 2010 at 9:46 am
Thanks, Lynne. That is very helpful. I agree about posting lists of individual endorsements. I always read those lists when I can find them. Maybe the candidates will take your suggestion.
August 24th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Why don’t you just buy the electronic version of the paper and stop complaining about it already? It’s $9.50 a month for god sake. The Newspaper is not a government service supported by taxes. It’s a business. And they rightly figured out that the one thing people actually want to read that they print is “the column” on Sunday. It’s a good business decision for them.
August 24th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
I don’t buy the Sun because I choose not to. I thought that was pretty clear actually…been saying that for years.
When they have good leadership to match the decent reporting (that is, decent when they are allowed to do their thing unhindered) I will snatch up a full subscription post haste.
The other thing is, it’s a really thinning newspaper, which makes me wonder if it’s really worth it. I mean, maybe 3-5 items a week are of interest. Why would I pay for that?