malonish wrote:It's kind of a big deal because the folks you depend on for insider info may have sources that know who they told what so when it gets out they no longer talk to them. This is turn devalues your subscription by giving you and everyone else less content.
NO, that isn't true at all.
1) Posting information on a paid news side doesn't make the news "private". It isn't like whispering into your best friend's ear. It it was posted in the Athletic, or any other site, it is out there. As a journalist, you either keep the information to yourself in order to respect privacy, or you post it. It doesn't matter where you post it. It's like saying that if someone talks about an article in The Economist that they are going to ruin the source The Economist used to generate the article just because you have to pay to get access to it. By posting the information in The Athletic, they are choosing to expose the source. It doesn't get exposed by posting it here.
2) If you had a subscription to The Athletic, which is a fantastic source by the way, you would already know that the entire staff has subscriptions to scout/247. If Billy says he didn't want to post information there because he doesn't want it to get to Pony Fans and expose a source, he is either full of it or stupid.
3) Have you ever heard people on The Ticket reference articles from The Athletic? Absolutely! They have referenced it on The Fan and ESPN as well. As long as you make sure to note where you got the information from, that is typically encouraged by pay sites. It is how they make their money - more people become aware of the information on the site, see value, and join. Cut and paste of entire articles is discouraged, but talking about the content as long as there is a reference is totally legal and makes the site money.
* - full disclosure - I was banned from Scout because several years ago I noted that one of their writers was vindictive towards June after he was banned from practice for writing up confidential material.