The Media & JKR/WB vs RDR Books, Has the media been fair in their coverage? |
 May 18 2008, 11:27 AM
Post
#11
|
|
Gringott's Cart Axle Greaser  Posts: 2,789 Joined: 5:22pm February 18, 2007 Location: Argentina   |
QUOTE(davidenglish @ May 18 2008, 12:21 PM)  There have been some who've take a "Curse on both your houses" attitude. (I saw a production of Romeo & Juliet yesterday. I'll resist further quotes.) This is the easy way to appear fair and balanced. One says something like "Fandom eats its own" or "Why can't we all be friends" or "Sorry, I don't care. I'm debating Twilight now and writing the Twilight Lexicon." Now, why do I think I know who you are talking about davidenglish?  I have to agree with Hagiographer13. Most of what might seem like a bias (towards both sides) is just lazyness on the journalists side. Now, that's just my opinion. -------------------- Oh, well, thank you very much, very nice of you. Your vote of confidence is overwhelming.
-The Princess Bride, Grampa |
 |
  
 
|
|
May 18 2008, 01:53 PM
Post
#12
|
|
Daily Prophet Photographer Posts: 888 Joined: 6:35pm April 4, 2008 Location: Great White North |
QUOTE(kabbymoh @ May 18 2008, 08:07 AM) We are all here as fans to state our biases in Jo's favour. But the media is under no such obligation. It would do us all well to remember that. Let us not bring up our children (many of whom read HP and adore JKR) to reason in this biased, non-thinking manner. I really like the bold printed part of this statement. It is our responsibility to have our children reason their own opinions from the love of the books and be able to find the truth in the news about books and about their beloved author. I am visualizing a grade school kid presenting a current events essay/project in class which they have worked hard on, researched from the newspapers and online on absolutely any topic and after their presentation to be told that their project was certainly well done but that the information they have used isn't factual. I believe that children (and adults for that matter) tend to believe the headlines as presented and shouldn't the media strive to meet the expectation for truth? -------------------- '- yet sadly, accidental rudeness occurs alarmingly often,'.....Albus Dumbledore |
|
|
|
|
May 18 2008, 03:27 PM
Post
#13
|
|
Official Singer of the Sorting Hat Song Posts: 6,605 Joined: 3:12pm July 22, 2005 Location: Lost in Hermione's beaded bag  |
Canadian writer John Degen reports in today's Globe & Mail book section why he's not worried about a war on copyright: Who needs copyright, anyway?
QUOTE For many, the copyright war began with the publication of Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, which examines the history of copyright in detail and suggests theoretical correctives to perceived excesses. There's a great deal in Free Culture with which I agree. Yet I still insist on my copyrights, even as my writing practice becomes more and more digital. I may have begun as a very traditional pen-and-notebook scribbler, but these days, most of what I write appears online, and I want to have some control over that work even after I release it through the Internet tubes. To true believers in a new, digital, world order I am an enemy, either hopelessly deluded or unconscionably greedy. Mr Degen is neither friend nor foe in the copyright war. He certainly believes in copyright. But he also thinks there can be an advantage to a writer who gives some of his work away for free. Read his blog here. Where I think the media has let us down is that they don't know what to make of this lawsuit? Is it an entertainment story? A business story? Celebrity gossip? or a Muggle interest story to be played for larfs? The media certainly don't see their readership being interested in it for more that two minutes. So they wait for the biggest headline to report and then they really focus on whichever aspect they're playing up and let the rest slide. The media took interest in the first days news and then vanished until the trial. And, as Melissa noted, even then they didn't much care except to see Jo on the stand and then report that Steve wept. At Leaky, it's been different. This is Ten Days that Shook the Fandom. The media reported what RDR and JKR said on the first day of November and then dropped it until the trial. Fandom, however, wanted to know what was going on. So we listened to every scrap of news reported from RDR's website. SVA gave a press release on November 4. And WB/JKR's first Complaint was filed November 5. RDR had to give WB/JKR a copy of the MS by November 6. The judge granted a temporary injunction, to which RDR said it was volutarily agreeing to, on November 9. And SVA gave his second press release on November 10. These are ten important days as they saw Fandom take control of the news reporting and the media merely reported that a hearing date was set for January and didn't really update what it had said as of November 1st and 2nd. But TLC revealed that RDR's story was not accurate. SVA's press releases were coy and misleading. (It is difficult to read the November 10 press release without seeing the blatant spin in hindsight.) Ten days saw Fandom itself begin to learn there was more to this story than what the media had reported. It learned that RDR had lied and SVA was hiding something. And that the whole business of copyright might be a bit more complicated than seeing no difference between the website and a book. We discussed fair use and we tried to find out what was or was not in the book. So when the media showed up again for the trial, TLC knew what was what, but most of the media were still stuck back in the first week of November with little time to play catchup. (Well, actually, Melissa's summaries of the case up until the trial would have helped them immensely and would only have taken few minutes to read.) So many in the media made the following errors: that JKR was suing SVA, that all books of criticism were at risk, that JKR was playing favourites, that JKR couldn't take competition, that she'd already approved the contents of the book, or that some pipsqueak publishing house in Muskegon, Michigan couldn't possibly harm JKR's billion dollar franchise. Few understood that it was about copyright and fair use. Even Tim Wu, who should know better, avoided the merits of the case, either for or against, and played up a non-existent civil war within Fandom. Why? Because he knew the law and the facts were against him and he was trying to salvage his reputation after the erroneous Dark Mark article in Slate. He was playing to the bloggers who desperately want to be able to cut & paste to their hearts content. And they cut & pasted his New Yorker piece with much joy --and not one cent in royalty tribute to Conde Nast. 
-------------------- Come the words that bubble
Up through broken laughter, Sweeter than spring-water, "Gods, I am so happy!" |
|
|
|
|
May 18 2008, 04:22 PM
Post
#14
|
|
Ron Weasley's #2 squeeze  Posts: 2,807 Joined: 11:00pm July 13, 2007 Location: Ottery St. Catchpole  |
QUOTE(davidenglish @ May 18 2008, 10:21 AM) That's your definition of brief, de?  I don’t think the media has been all that factual, not to say they lie, but they have an opinion and they manipulate the facts to support that opinion. It’s done all the time, not just in this case. Sometimes they want us to laugh at SVA (there's Wu's mushroom hair comment) and sometimes they want us to sympathize with him. It really is all about what they think will sell the papers and magazines. Most readers are into the David and Goliath cases and most support the underdog. They portray JKR as Goliath and SVA as David/underdog. If you actually take a look at the case, it's not this way at all. JKR is no Goliath and SVA is not on trial it's RDR. --------------------  Win-gar-dium Levi-o-sa Ron Weasley: He Does it Anyway. |
|
|
|
|
May 18 2008, 04:30 PM
Post
#15
|
|
Proud owner of a half-dead horse! Posts: 739 Joined: 1:48pm July 14, 2005 Location: Reading all the books at Flourish and Blotts |
QUOTE(kabbymoh @ May 18 2008, 03:22 PM) I take that back...I'm looking through and it looks like what a Lexicon is supposed to look like. A collection of facts. Haven't finished yet though, so perhaps I will find the infringing bits soon (please point me in the direction of those pages if you can/wish to do so). Also, there was some reporting and commentaries somewhere (might have been news reports or just comments I read on here) that the Lexicon did not have that many references or credit the author JKR with citations. What I am looking through now has many references. What's the problem: Should he have written out "Order of the Phoenix" instead of just "OP"? Is the problem that the referencing style does not conform to MLA or APA format? What is the real issue here, people? Is it just that JKR does not want a competing book on the market because she is going to release her own encyclopedia? Or are there genuine and vindicated concerns that the Lexicon infringes on her work? Like I said, I don't know enough. I pray you will all inform me as you see fit. But from what I am reading now, this is not an infringing book. I can see why the judge encouraged them to settle. The issue here is that the "facts" chronicled in the Lexicon manuscript are not "facts," they are little bits of Jo's fiction and creative imagery. These are not facts, and they can be (and are) copyrighted. 91% of the manuscript is composed of quotes and paraphrases from Jo's fictional works. That's not okay, as far as my reading of the copyright statutes tells me. As far as the citations go, they should appear in every location in which a work has been quoted or paraphrased, which they do not. Direct quotes should be placed inside quotation marks, which they are not. Citations should include the page number of the author's chosen version of the books, which they do not. Quotes and paraphrases from other works like the dictionaries of mythology or the latin dictionaries Steve and the Lexicon staff used in chronicling the books should also be identified with quotation marks and citations, which they are not. In fact, if you go backwards in the lawsuit threads, I think somewhere around threads 7 or 8 (it was a long time ago, I can't remember exactly which thread) you can see how posters here have analyzed bits of the book to determine how much of certain entries is composed of copyrighted material (Jo's or otherwise), how much is common knowledge, and how much is original to the manuscript. Generally speaking, as far as fair use is concerned, it's better for a work that borrows from a copyrighted work to have more original material than previously copyrighted material, and that's absolutely not the case where this book is concerned. But all that is probably better suited to the thread about the book and the lawsuit, rather than this thread, which is about the media coverage of the suit. I think the media coverage of this case has been completely irresponsible. I don't necessarily care which side the reporters think should win the case. I do care whether said reporters actually know what the case is about, and many of them don't seem to. And when all the pertinent information about the case is freely available online, there's no justification for a reporter being that ill informed about the facts. For example, a reporter who says Steve Vander Ark is being sued is not completely informed of the facts. He's not a defendant. A reporter who says the website is at risk of being shut down is not completely informed of the facts. The amended complaint specifically states that this case has to do with the book and not the website. A reporter who says this is about all companion books is not completely informed of the facts. Other companion books have been published about Harry Potter, and will most likely continue to be published as long as they do not infringe copyright. Lots of mountains being made out of mole-hills in the media, as far as I can see. -------------------- "Heh, heh, heh; Mine is an evil laugh!" --Wash, Firefly
"If only there was something in your head that could control the things you say..." --Chandler, Friends "His face looked into my face, and LIED to my FACE!" --Lane Kim |
|
|
|
|
May 19 2008, 10:21 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Daily Prophet Photographer Posts: 888 Joined: 6:35pm April 4, 2008 Location: Great White North |
Yesterday at Times Online
From The Sunday TimesMay 18, 2008 Michael Rosen breaks Harry Potter spell The children's laureate claims JK Rowling's series is "boring" and the characters too ambiguous http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/s...icle3953657.ece Followed up today with: Harry Potter ‘is too boring and grown-up for young readers’ http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol...icle3958599.ece Both yesterday and today Times Online has published articles about Michael Rosen stating that he didn't feel that Harry Potter books were appropriate (paraphrasing here) for younger children. Mr. Rosen has commented the following at Leaky News: "I’m afraid I’ve been misquoted and misrepresented on this matter. I was trying to make two point. I personally as an adult don’t read HP books for pleasure, though I’ve read two and a half of them. In my experience first readers (five, six and seven year olds) often find them hard going. I always understood them to be ideal reading for 8 plus because they ‘get’ more of the jokes, ideas and can follow the plot better." "I’ve supported and defended the HP books many, many times on radio and TV while others around me have attacked them. I’m appalled that what I said about me as an adult readers was taken to mean that I didn’t want children to read the books or that I thought they were inappropriate. I think just the opposite. Surely it’s not beyond the intelligence of a journalist to be able to figure that there is a difference between what an adult might read for him or herself and what they think is a good read for eight, nine and ten year olds and indeed not quite such a good read for five, six and seven year olds." "I am so sorry that it has all appeared like this, I am a passionate believer in children’s reading, and enjoyment of reading and, in the modern environment, part of that is of course the Harry Potter series." Posted by Michael Rosen on May 19, 2008 @ 03:26 PM While this isn't a media report of JKR/WB vs RDR Books it is an example of runaway media taking one respected author's comments out of context to create what looks like a criticism of another high profile author, J.K. Rowling. I am shaking in my boots to think what is to come when, and if, a court decision is announced. Some days I just feel so naive believing what I read. To Mr. Rosen, apparently it is beyond the intelligence of a journalist (or two) to be able to figure out that there is a difference between what an adult might read for himself or herself and what they think is a good read for eight, nine and ten year olds and indeed not quite such a good read for five, six and seven year olds. -------------------- '- yet sadly, accidental rudeness occurs alarmingly often,'.....Albus Dumbledore |
|
|
|
|
May 19 2008, 11:16 PM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Official Singer of the Sorting Hat Song Posts: 6,605 Joined: 3:12pm July 22, 2005 Location: Lost in Hermione's beaded bag |
Yes, the UK media also tried to fabricate a writer's feud when Joanna Trollope left Bloomsbury last month. "A source" told the press JK Rowling was responsible. LOL. And yet it seemed more likely that Ms Trollope was just following her editor to a rival publisher and not ditching Bloomsbury over a snit over how JKR got prefered treatment.
Curiously, the story had something of the same structure as Tim Wu's piece. Anger and jealousy over someone who is treated like a princess and a falling out. And the quotes used to construct the story (see here) are hilariously ambiguous. "We both know why I am here, don't we?" (Nope. Haven't a clue. Can we be more specific?)
-------------------- Come the words that bubble
Up through broken laughter, Sweeter than spring-water, "Gods, I am so happy!" |
|
|
|
|
May 20 2008, 12:07 AM
Post
#18
|
|
Knight MacMod The Great Protecting The Memory Of Sense  Posts: 2,430 Joined: 7:17pm February 17, 2006 Location: 3rd door on the left, Hogsmeade  |
QUOTE(Weird One @ May 19 2008, 08:21 PM) [...] Followed up today with: Harry Potter 'is too boring and grown-up for young readers' Ah, Yes, quite right. That explains the lack of sales, the lack of enthusiasm among young readers. It really is a shame that no one under 30 is reading Harry Potter--other than all my grandchildren, my neighbor's children, the. . . well, all over the world kids have been excitedly reading Harry Potter. Why hasn't anyone told them how bored they really are? It is time we all stop beating our children and forcing them to read Harry Potter. You would think they would know how bored they are. It certainly is good that someone is there to tell them what they think and feel, someone to protect them from their own boredom. A claim like that is so easily refuted that I am surprised anyone with an IQ of two digits could seriously advance it. It might be possible for someone to advance an argument that HP is not suitable for young children (I would disagree), but to use the term "boring" is ludicrous. **Headline--flash--scientist reveals the truth that water is not wet.** --------------------  click the Q "And, if there is need to speak in brief summary of this power, we shall find that none of the things which are done with intelligence take place without the help of speech, but that in all our actions as well as in all our thoughts speech is our guide, . . ." Isocrates, Antidosis |
|
|
|
|
May 20 2008, 06:07 AM
Post
#19
|
|
Owner of D's Favorite Avatar! Posts: 3,058 Joined: 10:59am June 8, 2005 Location: Exile on Main St |
I read those quotes from Michael Rosen, and got a bit annoyed by his comments. Then I hit my head with the palm of my hand and went "Of course, they twisted his words."
 "We both know why I am here, don't we?" Perhaps to get a bigger pay check? I never heard about Joanna Trollope leaving Bloomsbury. Must have missed that one. I don't see how Jo, could force anyone to leave. I mean the series has finished. And there isn't a guarantee that the next book she releases will be with Bloomsbury.
--------------------  "If Homer Simpson wants his son to work in a Burlesque House, then Homer Simpson's son will work in a burlesque house!" ...(Marge appears) "Now Marge, you're going to hear a LOT of crazy talk about Bart working in a Burlesque House..." |
|
|
|
|
May 20 2008, 07:15 AM
Post
#20
|
|
|
Flesh-Eating-Slug Catcher Posts: 153 Joined: 9:30am December 6, 2007 Location: Feet on the ground; head in the clouds. |
Today's to do list: 1) Get kabbymoh's book.
 JKR said, was it before or during the trial, that she felt "betrayed". kabbymoh, I do think this referenced SVA. However, I think she was referring to the fact that she allowed him fairly broad leeway with his site and was betrayed when he decided to turn it into a book and ignore all communication from her agents. The media has definitely sensationalized this trial. A rather dry, legal issue - copyright infringement - is being reported as "Successful author shuns devoted fan" or "Big Corporation runs over the little guy", "Greedy witch needs all the money and fame", "Weird world of fandom"...you get the idea. Most of it has been unsympathetic to JKR because that's a better story angle. I don't know that I expect any better of the mass media these days. It's not so much laziness with regards to fact checking as a willingness to simply "create facts" that suit the reporters desire for a by-line. It's ironic. We're talking about a writer who was once a media darling because her success followed a down-on-her-luck, starving artist beginning. Now, she is being criticized by the same press for that same success. -------------------- I'm forever blowing bubbles, pretty bubbles in the air. On you Irons!
|
|
|
|
