« A new blog of note | Main | Blogging about money »

Tuesday, September 20, 2005


The SF Chronicle culled from my Findlaw column with Vik Amar on the same-sex marriage bill in California and printed this op-ed today.  This raised a question for me:  The Legal Times killed my article on the subject that was supposed to run on Monday because they thought the Findlaw column preempted it, yet the Chronicle had no such concerns.  Neither did Findlaw, given that I had effectively blogged the idea for the piece days before on this very site.  The New York Times ran an op-ed by Anne Althouse yesterday, which was undoubtedly "preempted" by her blog; indeed the op-ed was more or less written for her blog

I guess preemption is a complicated concept.

Posted by Ethan Leib on September 20, 2005 at 01:26 PM in Article Spotlight | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Op-Ed:


That makes sense. Though the Legal Times is substantially different from Findlaw in terms of audience. I would say 90% of Legal Times readers live in DC and are Beltway legal practitioners. You may be right nevertheless.

Posted by: Ethan Leib | Sep 20, 2005 4:36:18 PM

Isn't a question of audiences: Legal Times figures that it has significant overlap in readership with Findlaw, but the SF Chronicle doesn't overlap with Findlaw to same degree (or at all), so it isn't pre-empted in the same way. In a similar way, the NYT op-ed page has a rather different (larger) audience than Althouse.

There is some ambiguity about what pre-emption means: is it being the first place to publish the idea, or being the first place the likely audience will have seen the idea?

Posted by: Isaac | Sep 20, 2005 4:22:13 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.