ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE did a huge story about Stanley McChrystal, the commander of allied forces in Afghanistan, and his criticism's of the Obama administration. As a result of the story, McChrystal tendered his resignation to the president - his remarks in the article, which he admits are accurate, could be considered as insubordinate.But there is another controversy surrounding the story: Time magazine published the Rolling Stone story online in full pdf version nearly two days before Rolling Stone did - and nearly five days before the Rolling Stone print issue hit the street. Another site ran the pdfs as well but that page has since been removed.
Rolling Stone sent advance copies of the newest issue to media outlets before going to press - like many magazines do - as a way of drumming up publicity. They said that they did not give pdf versions to Time, nor did anyone from Time contact them for permission to run the pdfs online.
Was Time just doing good journalism by beating Rolling Stone to their own story? Or did Time violate Rolling Stone's copyright by printing pdfs without authorization?
2 comments:
That is just bad journalism inegrity. Don't all publication have to stand by copyright laws? TIME is a well respected magazine, or at least it was. All I can say is that I'm not sure if this would hurt TIME, but it probably won't help them.
Maybe Time was just trying to save face after naming McChrystal a Runner-up for "Man of the Year"
Post a Comment