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
[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.
(Leave a comment)
Top of Page Powered by LiveJournal.com