RSS
Home
Professional journalist or spoiled child?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
These are the times that try men's souls. – Thomas Paine
Perhaps one of the downsides of fame (using the term lightly in this case) is that others believe you are public property. They assume the privilege of talking about you as if they know you intimately–even feeling qualified to judge your shortcomings, real and imagined–when all they know is what they read or hear from other “experts” on the topic of you. But this is a minor annoyance compared to the belief that they can steal your property and use it for their own benefit.
Recently, a blogger decided to “honor” this author with “extra attention” by posting an entire article on the Brady Campaign at their site.
A recent article outing the Brady Campaign for copying an article resulted in positive reader response.
After requesting all but the two lead paragraphs removed with a link to the Examiner page, as per fair use copyright law, this email arrived:
I removed the entire post. Please note that you are the only Examiner that has ever complained. Most have enjoyed the extra attention and coverage. in the future, should I encounter something that you write, I will simply refer to it as the work of someone that does not appreciate positive feedback or coverage. Like a spoiled child.
Considering that this person calls himself a libertarian, such a response is curious: Is not private property rights one of the pillars of Liberty?
On average, each article represents many hours of labor: collecting data, often building spreadsheets, citing sources, drafting, and multiple edits.
As far as “extra attention and coverage,” Google Analytics tells the unfortunate truth: Sites which copy entire articles produce no referrals to Examiner pages.
How can stealing be considered “positive feedback and coverage”? Does this mean that home invaders are paying you a complement because they targeted your home? Women should thank rapists for honoring them with attention?
Is there some sort of socialist ideology infecting some in the gun rights community that justifies, in their minds, the expropriation of other people’s work product because it’s “for a good cause”? Didn’t Hitler round up and exterminate 20 million “for a good cause”?
Is a Gun Rights Examiner’s labor somehow tainted if they get paid for their work? Is it more noble to suffer in poverty when the cause is considered just?
This author recently interviewed two large mail order ammunition suppliers for an article on California’s new ammunition law. It would likely be unethical for them to offer free ammunition to a reporter, and they haven’t done so, nor would this author accept it. The point here is that nobody gives writers a free ride just because they think we fight the good fight. The bank expects a mortgage payment every month, and there are no “good guy” discounts.
But some in the community think things are free…until they are asked to give up something they stole. Then they act like possession equals ownership. That’s why the law of the land acknowledges that if the robber doesn’t leave you your property, you have the right to use all necessary force to stop them.
Do pro-gun writers deserve remuneration or not?
If anybody agrees or not, comments are below.
For those that agree, please consider taking action when you find a Gun Rights Examiner’s, or any pro-gun writer’s, article copied to another site: Contact them and request they honor our movement by honoring intellectual property rights. And let the author know, too.
We either live with values, or we don’t. By the same token, one either supports the battle to restore the Second Amendment, or they damage the cause.
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Wisconsin: Gene German
More About:
gunrights
Related Articles:
Comments
On November 23, 2009, 210 Representatives signed a McDonald v. Chicago brief, asking the Supreme Court to incorporate the Second Amendment right to …
A police officer once described the two-part criminal justice system this way: “We arrest criminals, and then the lawyers figure out a way to …
- National - David Codrea
- Cleveland - Dan White
- Los Angeles - John Longenecker
- St. Louis - Kurt Hofmann
- Charlotte - Paul Valone
- Denver - Dan Bidstrup
- DC - Mike Stollenwerk
- Minneapolis - John Pierce
- Seattle - Dave Workman
- Atlanta - Ed Stone
- Wisconsin - Gene German
- Boston - Ron Bokleman
- Grand Rapids - Skip Coryel
- Cheyenne - Anthony Bouchard
- Phoenix - Douglas Little
- Knoxville - Liston Matthews
- David Hardy - Arms and the Law
- Gun News Daily
- War on Guns
- The High Road
- Say Uncle
- NRA News
- Free Republic
- Jeff Soyer - Alphecca.com
- Snowflakes in Hell
- Nicki Fellenzer - The Liberty Zone
- Dave Kopel
- Massad Ayoob
- A Keyboard and a .45
- The Real Gun Guys
- Wake Up America
- Clayton Cramer - Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog
- Oleg Volk - A Human Right
- National Rifle Association
- Texas State Rifle Association
- Keep and Bear Arms
- California Rifle and Pistol Association
- Gun Owners of America
- Second Amendment Foundation
- USA Carry
- Canadian Shooting Sports Association
- Canada's National Firearms Association
- Ted Nugent
- Georgia Carry
- Open Carry
- Armed Females of America
- Future of Freedom Foundation
- Second Amendment Sisters
- Liberty Belles
