Chicago journalist Claire Zulkey wrote about the White Sox for WSJ.com several years ago. On Thursday, she asked on Facebook: “If I’ve written for the Wall Street Journal’s website, can I say I’ve written for the WSJ?”
Most people said it was OK, although Chicago Sun-Times columnist Neil Steinberg wrote: “I don’t know. Isn’t it more like playing violin in the lobby of Carnegie Hall and saying you’ve performed at Carnegie Hall? ….Aren’t we presuming some theoretical listener who would care? I’ve written for a wide range of top notch publications and can’t imagine a circumstance where that would matter anymore.”
Other responses from her Facebook wall:
Eric Spitznagel: Personally, I think adding ‘.com’ just shows insecurity. Only old farts who refuse to believe that print is dying want to make a distinction. Would you list a credit as ‘Wall Street Journal the newspaper?’ Of course not.
Why is the print version more important than the dot com version? Because it pays more? From my experience, more people read the Internet than things printed on paper. Ten, even five years ago, this would be an issue. But not anymore. You write for the Wall Street fucking Journal, dammit. (P.S. I write for the New York Times Magazine the magazine.)
Jimmy Greenfield: Did they pay you? Edit you? If so, absolutely yes. There is no distinction any more between web and print. If they were basically a platform where you posted your content then I’d say no.
Nathan Rabin: As someone who has done both, the answer is yes.
I wrote to Zulkey: “I assume your takeaway from the responses is that it *is* OK. I’m curious – for possible posting – why you bring this up now, eight years after the White Sox piece was published.
She responded: “I am revamping my site including my list of clients and wanted to be accurate. And yes, my takeaway is that I can claim the wsj.”
* If I’ve written for WSJ’s website, can I say I’ve written for the WSJ? (facebook.com)
* Zulkey is Chicago’s living example of an Internet success story (timeoutchicago.com)