A look at service journalism in the 21st century
It’s apparent our colleagues at Gawker do not understand what team-based service journalism is really all about.
Before I go on, let me share the events that have led me to write this.
Gawker recently published an article accusing Men’s Health Editor-in-Chief David Zinczenko of plagiarizing writers on his staff.
The media blog then published another article discussing the response given by Rodale, the publisher of Men’s Health.
The comments of Zinczenko’s plagiarism, and the tone they used throughout the articles are not only inappropriate, but they are sorely inaccurate.
The closest Gawker came to being correct was a seemingly sarcastic line towards the end of the second article saying “Clearly we lack the synergistic minds necessary to understand this new model of 21st century journalism.”
They do lack this understanding, and here’s why.
How Gawker got it wrong
To start, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines plagiarizing as the process of stealing and passing off the ideas or words of another as one’s own.
In the case of Gawker, it’s hard to accuse someone of plagiarism when the content’s origin cannot be defined by anything other than the brand itself.
Organizations that engage in team-based service journalism set principles that they believe in and continuously write about.
Due to this, it’s quite presumptuous of Gawker to say they understand where the content originated and when it was recycled. Zinczenko, or any other writer, may have created the original content while the byline sited a different author. In team-based journalism, the brand is the only true author. Rodale implied this in its response by citing that the content was originally published in David’s books, which were created through a team effort.
[text_ad]
Men’s Health and the successful approach to service journalism
At Mequoda Group, we think of David Zinczenko as a top editor because he understands audience development is a huge part of his job. In addition to being the current leader of an editorial team, he has become the personification of the Men’s Health brand.
Which in turn is why his column is syndicated on Yahoo, and why he visits the Today Show often.
Mequoda Group asked Zinczenko to be a keynote presenter at our Mequoda Summit Boston 2010 because we wanted a living, breathing personified-version of a cutting-edge magazine that’s relatable and informative. This is what a successful Editor-in-Chief has become.
It appears to us that the final post by Gawker shows their lack of insight on modern service journalism and almost offers an apology for their misunderstanding.
I’ve had the pleasure of working with David in the past and I’m proud to have him as a member of the Mequoda Advisory Board. I personally have learned a lot from David on 21st century service journalism and use his best practices in courses I lead here and abroad. In addition to being a successful Editor-in-Chief, he is a great blogger and has recently taken tweeting to a whole new level.
Instead of criticizing, Gawker should take a course from Zinczenko and the Men’s Health team.
This scenario has highlighted one of the many changes that have become pointed in today’s online publishing world. To learn more about service journalism, which is what the Men’s Health editorial team is practicing,, join us at the Mequoda Summit West 2011 in San Ramon, CA.
Here are the posts by Gawker:
Men’s Health Editor Plagiarizes His Own Writers
Plagiarizing Editor’s Boss: ‘Byline Doesn’t Take Credit for the Work’
Correction: At the time of publication, David Zinczenko had not accepted his appointment to the Mequoda Advisory Board.
“Since he paid the writers for that content, doesn’t he technically own it?”
The magazine may own the work, but that doesn’t give the editor the right to put his name on other people’s work. An ethical editor understands that a writer’s byline is his reputation. If the magazine paid a photographer for a photo, does that give David Zinczenko the right to put his name on the photo?
Stealing is stealing. David Zinczenko stole.
Since he paid the writers for that content, doesn’t he technically own it?
And would it be a different if they were plagiarizing HIM (by repurposing content from his books, magazine, etc) and not the other way around? No, because he still owns it.
Plagiarism or not it was in poor taste. If you want to repurpose content then don’t do it in a misleading way. From Men’s Health okay. By Someone Who Did Not Write It When It’s Already Been Published Under The Authors Name- not okay.
Should you choose to do this anyway, understand it will reflect poorly upon your organization.
All this yapping you are doing in this post is irrelevant. Perhaps you should save the brownnosing love fest for another post. It would make it seem more authentic.
Last time I left reader feedback – along with several other readers on the same topic at that time – it resulted in an inflammatory, goading post back from your new editor, on your behalf, Don. Very poor of you.
It was made all the more unforgivable by the three people who left the same (constructive but concerned) feedback, doing so from an obviously deep experiential knowledge base.
However, I’ll take the risk of leaving another one on today’s story.
Feedback is this. As a Mequoda Gold member, I take the time out of my busy schedule to read every day’s email from your company. But stories like this, where there is no thread or relevance provided for overseas or other readers who have no idea what you’re talking about, just appear as though you’re using your reader vehicle to score brownie points with your own network.
Now, you can argue with that and have your man post another inflammatory response back in an endeavour to have the last, flattening word, but I am simply stating a fact. That’s how it comes across.
Now, did you effectively make an enemy of me and probably the other readers you insulted last time? Obviously, in my case, I will admit you did. HOWEVER, I offer you this feedback on this particular article with full sincerity for the feedback itself. It IS a meaningless story to those readers outside wherever it is one must live to even know whom you’re talking about.
Hi Jo:
Thanks for the feedback.
If you are a Gold or Pro Member, you have access to all our Webinars on Demand. I think these three may help you find the context you are missing on the topic of audience development and team-based service journalism:
http://www.mequoda.com/mequoda-pro/member/mequoda-pro-courses/content-marketing-2010/
http://www.mequoda.com/mequoda-pro/member/mequoda-pro-courses/building-email-circulation/
http://www.mequoda.com/mequoda-pro/member/mequoda-pro-courses/editorial-strategy/
The middle program above includes a case with David Z on audience development.
The other two will give you a framework for the topic.
Hope that helps lift the cloud for you.
BEst,
Don
Hi Don,
I couldn’t agree more! David is a shining example of constructively reusing his publication’s editorial assets to build the brand and increase circulation. If Gawker either doesn’t understand this strategy, they should have another look at it.
Did Gawker ask for an explanation BEFORE it trashed David Z.?
We’re all journalists here, right? Every journalist I know has made a mistake from time to time and had to issue an apology or retraction, owing to having failed to get a fact precisely right.
So, my question is, will Gawker have the humility to admit it made a mistake and didn’t take the time to understand, didn’t get all the facts, and didn’t ask David for an explanation?
Legitimate journalists (and all individuals with integrity) admit when they’ve made a mistake and try to make things right. Our craft (journalism) requires this.
— Peter