Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I don't recall any of them bitching about other writers or the site on the forum and quite a few of them make really vital contributions to the community.
this is all self-policed. there are no code of conduct rules. i don't encourage or discourage anything, which is kinda how it should be. we've had a few assholes involved with the site in the past (which is inevitable when we don't interview and often don't even meet staff members IRL until after a few years of contributing) but they tend not to hang around long.
If you are a TITLE’s staff member and are approached by any external media to write, freelance or comment on any issue (music or other) the enquiry must be routed to **** in PR for approval before you agree to anything. "This rule also applies to freelancers if they are being credited as a TITLE’s contributor."
the rest of it doesn't seem THAT unreasonable - but if i'm reading that correctly then they are saying that someone who is freelancing has to then go and get permission before they freelance somewhere else? i don't think that's going to happen - specially this bit '(music or other)'
music or other?
so if you have written a three paragraph review or the last killers single or whatever for TITLE and then good food magazine asks you to do a piece about how to cook a steak, you are suppossed to go and ask TITLE'S permission if you can do it? GTFO
If you are representing a brand in another location, then what you say could have an affect on that brand. It's only fair that the brand seeks to make sure that any instances are properly managed. I can understand it.
It just covers your back is all.
The bit above really just says "don't slag off the magazine or there will be repurcussions" which, to be fair, is true of anywhere you work, freelancers or otherwise. I'd have thought most freelances'd know that if you slag off the employer in public they're probably not going to employ you again.
Of course it does depend how they interpret it but I didn't necessarily read it as "you can't have a musical opinion on a social network".
Of course the second half about seeking permission from PR to write anywhre else is just bizarre.
If you are a contracted employee then it's fair enough that your terms state you have an obligation to not damage your employer (though frankly it's intellectual cowardice to in any way prevent the dissemination of honest opinion, especially on something as unimportant as music). If you write on a freelance basis then a single publication is not buying your exclusive loyalty so they can get dicked. Obviously if you deliberately piss them off you might expect the freelancing to dry up there but it's really your choice and again only a twerp would take an honest opinion that conflicted with their own personally in this sort of realm.
The only bit that does seem dodgy is them saying that all freelancers must get approval for any commisions from the TITLE's PR department.