Log in

No account? Create an account

The Sunday Night Update - some questions answered.


Previous Entry The Sunday Night Update - some questions answered. Nov. 7th, 2010 @ 09:41 pm Next Entry
Leave a comment
Date:November 9th, 2010 06:07 pm (UTC)
Their official "apology" is rather odd. They lead with a lengthy discussion of Facebook "hacking", and don't get to the actual apology for quite some time :)

The apology, when it comes, seems to be sincere, but the whole post is rather badly written for someone who expected you to be grateful for a free rewrite :)

All the best,

Date:November 9th, 2010 06:54 pm (UTC)
i read there "apology" to me it seem like when my 12 year old is trying to get out being in trouble. Look at all the bad stuff every one did see it isn't my fault it was an accident mom i am not sure how my toys and clothes got shoved under my bed when i was supposed to be cleaning my room next time i will try better. However sadly i think it is the best Monica is going to get with out a lawyer. with a lawyer i think she should get more.
[User Picture Icon]
Date:November 10th, 2010 03:58 am (UTC)
Oh yeah. The official apology reminds me of all the times I've had to kick/ban minors from under-18-not-admitted chat rooms I helped maintain. Somehow, even after they'd been caught in their lies, they would insist that it was totally not their fault, their cousin must have come into the room or something. It's amazing how many people think the whole Evil Twin/roommate/cousin thing is going to be a new and credible story, especially when told to someone who's old enough to be their mother or father.

Griggs may not have flat-out said that she was in the habit of taking people's stories without credit and even changing the names on them, but what she did say implied it strongly enough that this new claim -- that somehow a bunch of disreputable writers hoodwinked them by submitting unsolicited articles cribbed from elsewhere -- is ludicrous and makes me think of all those kids I'd kick out of adult chat rooms. "It wasn't me, honest! Look over there!"

The reforms they claim they're making to the magazine are standard publishing practices that they ought to have been doing all along. Any reputable magazine that reprints an article has, as a matter of course, source information including the words "reprinted with permission." (Oh, and actual permission to go along with it.) If Griggs really had the kind of editorial experience she claims, she'd know that, and know why that's essential.

Also, the whole thing about publications sending their works and samples of their works to her... uh, assuming that actually happened the way she described it, it didn't mean what she thought. That wasn't "crib this, please!" That was a standard publishing procedure to drum up sales -- send your books (or samples) out to magazines that serve your target readership so that they can write reviews or, possibly, give previews (with attributions and links to where people can buy the full work!) that will result in book sales. When you get those, in any field, that's how you give back; if Griggs had done a review of a cookbook, included a sample recipe and information about where to buy the book itself, she'd probably have been on safe ground, but that's not what she ever actually did.

I have a feeling that there won't be much left for smaller claims after some of the big companies get through with Cooks Source, but who knows? Hopefully there'll be something left for the wronged bloggers once the corporations are done.
[User Picture Icon]
Date:November 9th, 2010 08:18 pm (UTC)
They seem a bit confused about what constitutes 'hacking', it seems to me.
(Leave a comment)
Top of Page Powered by LiveJournal.com