04/25/24
January 04, 2004
Occasionally, Schilling has some thought provoking posts with questions for fans and then commentary from his perspective as an MLB player (plus it's so interesting/different to get it right from a player's mouth without mediafilter in between). In some cases, with proper link support elsewhere, his posts have the making for interesting FPPs.
However, he is now including a disclaimer that makes me wonder what the hell we are considered, in the grander scheme of things.
"All text in this post is off the record for any media members browsing this forum. I am not granting permission for this to be duplicated in any form in any other media forum. ...I would ask that to be the only place something about this post appears other than here."
posted by jerseygirl to navel gazing at 04:25 PM - 8 comments
This is an emerging area of media ethics, but I think Schilling is pretty foolish if he expects that text to be "off the record." A source can go off with the record with a journalist, but both parties have to agree to the terms (i.e., the source can specify that the information is not for publication at all, merely for context; the source can speak "on background," providing valuable information that is not for attribution; or the source may be agree to be quoted anonymously, etc.)
Posting to any message board and saying "BTW, this is off the record for all you media out there" is the modern equivalent of going to a shared facility and putting up an item on the bulletin board with the same proviso. This applies equally to public and private facilities, IMHO: say Hootie Johnson posts an "off the record" message on the Augusta National clubhouse bulletin board about club policy toward admitting women. Would he have a legal/ethical leg to stand on if a reporter saw it while preparing for a tee time -- or if someone leaked that flyer to the media? Methinks not.
posted by jeffmshaw at 06:23 PM on January 04, 2004
Schilling's too smart to think that disclaimer means bupkiss. He's making comments in a public forum. If they're newsworthy, they'll show up elsewhere. As for SportsFilter, we're a community weblog, discussion forum, sports media site, floor wax, and dessert topping.
posted by rcade at 10:56 AM on January 05, 2004
In Schillings case, I think a reporter could discuss the nature of the message, but I don't think he/she would be allowed to post the exact content of the post. I think it would be coming close to some copyright problems at that point. At the bottom of this page, it says: Copyright © 2002–2004 SportsFilter All posts and comments are © their original authors. I can say "rcade mentioned in a preivous discussion that he thinks the Maple Leafs are the greatest team in NHL history", but I might get in trouble if I print an article containing the EXACT comment rcade made (without getting his permission). I might be able to use snippets of the comment for review purposes (like book reviewers and movie reviewers are allowed), but to print the entire thing (or too much of it) without rcades permission might be copyright infringement.
posted by grum@work at 11:24 AM on January 05, 2004
A little perspective here.
posted by jasonspaceman at 03:17 PM on January 05, 2004
15 pts for 'bupkiss' awarded to Super Mario himself.
posted by garfield at 05:37 PM on January 05, 2004
We're not media, per se, but we're a forum, right? We're a floor wax AND a dessert topping.
posted by forksclovetofu at 07:53 PM on January 05, 2004
Tell Schilling to get his ass in gear and start posting here then.
posted by billsaysthis at 10:00 PM on January 05, 2004
JG, given the combination of fair use and limited signups at SOSH, SpoFi doesn't come under this ban. Which is only voluntary, after all, and will likely not even be honored by the Big Media when his comments are newsworthy or on days when nothing else interesting crosses the desk of Sox/MLB beat writers. For our little site, anyway, we're going to link to his post and are not likely to reproduce much of it here; I hardly think he's going to object to us discussing it when we can't get SOSH IDs.