Multiple deaths, including children, at Connecticut school shooting

I don't think you understand how a story is written and why certain things are written ahead of others.

You chop off the first 15 inches, that's editing.

 

He also doesn't understand that copying and pasting long chunks of stories is at best disrespectful to journalists and at worst a form of plagiarism.

 

Well, it's one or the other, isn't it?

I posted an excerpt. I chose a few interesting paragraphs, with a link. Hopefully, folks who want to learn more, will read more.

There's nothing disrespectful about, and it's certainly not plagiarism, as there was no effort to claim the work as my own.

 

It actually is disrespectful, as it doesn't require people to click the link, which deprives the newspaper of the ad revenue, however minimal, associated with that. And ad revenue is how journalists eat.

Certainly those who aggregate newspaper content on, for example, blog sites are guilty of and have rightfully been pursued for theft of intellectual property.

Quibble over the definition of excerpt if you wish. I find seven paragraphs to be excessive, and you've posted longer than that.

 

Good grief, YF didn't do anything wrong. He posted the part he found interesting from the article. We've all done that. And if you're going to bust his balls for posting too much of the article, then my man 93D committed a worse sin by posting the whole damn thing.

Anyway, I await the conspiracy theorists to go crazy about the police redacting witnesses' names. They won't catch the irony that the reason their names were omitted is because of the conspiracy theorists in the first place.

 

The excerpt I posted was less than 20% of the article.

Because I was only posting a short excerpt, I chose what I thought was the most interesting part, rather than posting the lede.

Now, this isn't some huge forum, so let's not pretend my post is going to make any kind of real difference in the total number of people who read the article.

But, if it were to do anything, it would only lead to more people reading it.

What I posted is completely consistent with the ruling in L.A. Times v. Free Republic.

If you're going to quibble with anyone, it should be with 93Devil, who posted the entire article.

 

Had to to create context.

 

I find the NRA literature/certificate and the group's immediate freakout over those findings to be fascinating.

 

For whom?

It was clearly an excerpt. Anyone who wanted to read more, only needed to click the link I provided.

If you thought my excerpt implied some message that was contradicted by the story in whole, you could have said that, and even posted a different excerpt to back up your point. If you thought the lede was necessary to provide "context" you could have posted the lede.

But, for whatever reason, you posted the whole article. That could be seen as disrespectful, and if done en masse, would be illegal.

 

This.

 

I find the sidebar fascinating.