Comments on: Is this ethical – Part 2

By: Eliseo

Eliseo — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:01:56 +0000

Informative Article… AWESOME.

By: walter

walter — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:46:36 +0000

Leitch has shown himself to be a creep who can\’t be trusted to keep his word. Sad truth — this is true of most journalists and bloggers. It\’s not that they\’re unethical so much as it is that they are dumb. All that \”unbiased reporting\” they do somehow limits their ability to do any real thinking, other than to come up with their dumb ideas for story lines, almost guaranteed to be shallow and hackneyed.

What\’s more, all you dorks standing up for Leitch are saying one thing — don\’t give interviews to stupid reporters.

By: Jimmy

Jimmy — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:41:32 +0000

Mark, your explicit mention of the name of the blog just serves to advertise it. In the future, omit the name – the guy doesn\’t deserve it be mentioned.

By: Drew Garabo

Drew Garabo — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:11:14 +0000

I think the reporter was clearly out of line. Mark, I read the interview and found your blunt takes quite refreshing and agreed with nearly everything you said. Given how many interview requests you undoubtedly receive, it must feel like a gut punch when you grant one, give a great interview, and then feel like you\’ve done your part…only to have the interviewer blatantly disregard your desire to not be a part of a blog you find distasteful. I hope this doesn\’t turn you off to all future interviews as I always enjoy reading what you have to say…even when I disagree with it.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:03:48 +0000

I agree with Terry Reeves. Today\’s generation do seem to have a looser interpretation of what is \”right and wrong\” in these types of situations. The rabid tabloid culture and Britney-ization of media means that if there can be any kind of \”buzz\” created by doing something, then a young writer is going to do it to get attention. He seems to have succeeded at that, but at what cost? Certainly, you will not be doing any further interviews with him, and it\’s questionable that you will do anymore for GQ. So he\’s cost himself and his employer an opportunity at having a connection with a newsmaker who people want are interested in hearing from. Yes, people can come to your blog, but a great interview with focused, intelligent questions can be more informative and enlightening.

Bottom line, it probably was not ethical by yesterday\’s more respectable journalistic standards, but in today\’s \”anything goes\” media culture it\’s unfortunately the norm rather than the exception. As a business decision, it was flat out stupid. Short term gain, long term pain… bad strategy.

By: Rick Bailey

Rick Bailey — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:41:40 +0000

So many people are missing the point here. As a journalist, here are the items that stick out:
*Mark Cuban cannot stand the blog that the writer owns. Mr. Cuban specifically asked about how the interview would be used. Had the writer informed Cuban that he wanted to blog about the interview later, and on the site in question, Cuban would have denied the interview request or, as Cuban stated, asked for a different interviewer. This was a blatant sandbagging by the writer.

*It is difficult to determine if the writer originally intended to blog about the interview, or just decided to let GQ be his advertising Spanish Fly by allowing them to foot the bill, then using the experience for his own personal gain. GQ can\'t be too happy about this, and will certainly have their legal eagles rework the writer\'s agreement for other \"journalists\".

*Is a blog ABOUT the interview the same as the interview/article itself? Good question. If the writer had hopes of ever interviewing Cuban again, the least he could have done would have been to give M.C. a heads up in advance of the blog. If Cuban was still adamantly against any mention of the interview on the site in question, do the simple thing and pull it. There are plenty of other things to write about.

It seems in the blog the writer wanted to make his tiny wittle site seem more important than it actually is (\"Cuban...spent most of the interview accusing Deadspin...\"). But giving yourself blogging fodder under the guise of someone else\'s \"journalism hat\" only shows how short-sighted the writer is. Very soon his reputation will proceed him and his interviews will become one shot deals. Major magazines can have their pick of journalists that will simply do the work, then move on to the next piece. They don\'t need self-servers undermining efforts they paid for.

By: Curt

Curt — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:03:09 +0000

MC - With your resources you can send a big signal to the industry here. Serve GQ with a lawsuit claiming breach of contract, which in this case was verbal, and with an agent of GQ (reporter). Let them sort it out on their end. If nothing else it will put all magazines/media on notice that such interviews should be expressly limited to the media outlet doing the interview unless explicitly agreed upon by both parties that some other media outlet may become involved.

If it were me, that\'s what I\'d do. This guy should be fired, period.

CW

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:37:24 +0000

yes unethical. obivously there are a few exceptions but for the most part journalists are such scumbags.

By: David Mackey

David Mackey — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:16:56 +0000

What is GQ\’s thoughts on this?

By: Robert Mena

Robert Mena — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:02:19 +0000

I see your point now, its ethically wrong. But its still the internet and maybe he decided he must write about the interview.