I am saddened by the downfall of the WashingtonPost.com blogger for hire Ben Domenech. It was, however, not unexpected. Mr. Domenech is just another victim of liberal media bias, in this case couched in terms such as "plagiarism" and "journalistic ethics." Some complained that a Mr. Domenech movie review for the National Review (I didn't know they did movie reviews, unless it was for retrospectives of Leni Riefenstahl's work) looked suspiciously like previously published accounts.
I say, why not? If the pieces are about the same movie, I'd hope they were similar. Duh.
What this episode reveals is the liberal media bias against the free market. Ben Domenech did what any entrepreneur would do: he took pre-existing material and added value to it. He then resold the product with the added value (his name). It's the same thing Calvin Klein does with his jeans. The factory worker takes the denim, sews a few legs in there, then adds a few different labels to it, and voila -- some go to Target for 15.99, some go to Saks for $135.
Then you let the market decide. Does the market like the review on some crazy website like "the flick filosopher" written by Maryann Johanson (who herself must be trying to capitalize on the fame of starlet Scarlett Johanson), or do they like the review served up under the brand name "Ben Domenech" and distributed by the National Review?
Once again, it all comes down to distribution and name recognition. The market, my friends. No one accuses Target or Wal Mart of plagiarism because they both sell Sony Playstations (products I might add that neither of those companies built). I for one look forward to the inevitable logic of the marketplace finally dismantling these last socialistic trade barriers such as "intellectual copyright."
5 comments:
I so wholeheartedly disagree with you characterization that I don't even know where to begin. Firstable, Target isn't claiming that they made the Playstation. The doctrine of derivative material is all fine and good with me, so long as give credit to the original work. Furthermore your reference to copyright suggests that someone has asserted ownership. This crux of this ordeal is not the ownership of words so much as the integrity of the latter author. In the end, the market did decide b/c it's not economically viable to hire reporters with no journalistic integrity. I'm still trying to figure out what principle is driving you to come down on the side of a plagiarist.
It's satire...evidently not done very well, but it is satire...oh well.
I got it.
Perhaps rcr's comment is meant as satire, too?
When the words "liberal media bias" appear on this blog, one knows that somewhere a tongue is jammed so hard in the cheek that attached the face looks disfigured.
You know, after I finished the comment I thought "maybe this is satire." But I had already hit post.
Whoops. I was slow yesterday.
Post a Comment