[jacquesm]

Let's hope everybody whose story got lifted is as laid back about it as you are. The obvious solution would be to simply publish a list of links and to then approach the authors to ask for permission for the sake of consistency in the presentation.

[dublinben]

>The obvious solution

It would be even better if authors who are going to say yes to a request like that would make it clear, by using a Creative Commons license in the first place.

[nostrademons]

That eliminates the possibility of saying yes on a case-by-case basis, though. I'm generally okay with stuff I write on the Internet appearing in compilations, reblogs, commentary, articles, etc. - but I have declined if, for example, the journalist seems to be writing a piece with a particular slant that I feel misrepresents what I was trying to say.

[dublinben]

A journalist will freely quote you and misrepresent your statement regardless of any copyright license.

[jacquesm]

That's why you write in situations like these in the first place. That's a way to pre-emptively stake your position giving journalists minimal room for creative mis-interpretation.

Interviews are a totally different situation and 'on the record' quotes out of context are the very reason I avoid interviews like the plague. I've yet to have one where that didn't happen, journalists are also called 'reporters' but from my experience 'reporting' to them does not mean reporting what was told to them but retelling in a way that suits their own agenda.

[TeMPOraL]

> journalists are also called 'reporters' but from my experience 'reporting' to them does not mean reporting what was told to them but retelling in a way that suits their own agenda

I've seen arguments that there are too many facts to be told, so it is the very job of a journalist to take those facts and tell a story by selectively highlighting ones that matter in that story.

I disagree with the premise. I think we (the audience) could handle all the facts if they were given to us straight. The narrative journalists are creating is not helpful, is actively harmful - because it's always someone's agenda and because they twist the facts too much (i.e. they lie through their teeth) to tell that story.

INB4 I get accused of generalizing, I'm invoking Sturgeon's law twice - once on journalists and once on critical thinking of general population, all that while giving a friendly reminder that this "general population" is the majority of the electorate. Sometimes all that crap tends to reinforce instead of cancelling out.