1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Wall Street Journal to take percentage of writers' book deals

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by swenk, Mar 4, 2008.

  1. swenk

    swenk Member

    I would question the commitment of that "marketing machinery," if such a thing even exists. It always sounds better on paper than in practical application.

    I would also question the wisdom of being business partners with your boss. At what point can your paper decide it needs to see the manuscript, maybe approve content? You're acknowledging that the paper owns your experiences and observations. And it does, to the extent that it paid you to write for the newspaper, and you did. Does it also own everything else you'll ever do on that topic?

    You get paid to do a job. What you do beyond that should belong to you, and you alone.
     
  2. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Hmm. Have a tough time with this.

    The newspaper hired and paid you to write for the paper. They own your work that they published but they don't own the knowledge you've gained while in their employ.

    As a book publisher, I'd also have a problem having the newspaper as part of the contractual obligation. The last thing I'd want is a third party interfering with the relationship between myself and my author.

    Bad, bad precedent if you ask me.

    And I agree with Swenk; the newspaper's "marketing machinery" looks better on paper than it does in reality.
     
  3. Joe Williams

    Joe Williams Well-Known Member

    Tell it to the guy who invented, while a chemist at 3m, the glue that was found to be perfect for a product known as Post-It notes. Trying to market it independently, he got clobbered by the intellectual property claim. And it wasn't like 3M had assigned him to produce a restickable glue for little tabs of note paper.

    And I couldn't object more to the idea of a longtime beat writer, who allegedly was breaking all news and providing great feature content on that beat, coming out 10 years into his run with an independent "behind the scenes" or "tell-all" book. The likelihood that he was holding stuff back for his own gain down the road is too great to be ignored. Especially since the Web sites are voracious enough to handle stuff that might not fit into the paper's news hole.

    Did we read about "The Jordan Rules" in the Chicago Tribune, before the book came out? If not, didn't the Tribune have a right to that material, considering it was funding full-time home and road coverage of that beat? There are plenty of other examples like this.

    If you write a book while you're working for a paper that covers the same beat, and you either once did cover, or are covering, that beat, I think it's reasonable for the paper to get a cut. You wouldn't have been in position to be the expert and write the book if not for the paper's blessing.

    If you once covered that beat but left that newspaper . . . or if you never worked for a media outlet that covers that beat regularly . . . or if you work for that paper but write a book about a beat or topic that you were not or are not paid to cover, then no, no cut for the paper.
     
  4. "Whoever invented these things is a rich motherfucker."

    "Shit, the motherfucker who invented Chicken McNuggets is still working in the same basement, trying to invent something to make the fries taste better or some shit."

    "He still invented them, though."
     
  5. Joe Williams

    Joe Williams Well-Known Member

    True dat.

    Love the reference.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page