Newspaper Journalists Claiming TV Reporters Are 'Plagiarizing' The News
from the sense-of-entitlement dept
Ima Fish writes " Seattlepi.com has a posting on its blog section from "the News Chick" about how broadcast news "plagiarizes" print news. Here's the gist of the complaint:"Print journalists consider it plagiarism. Broadcasters call it a "rewrite."Condensing 800 words down to 50 words is not plagiarism, if the word "plagiarism" is to have any real meaning, of course.
Here's how it works in nearly every news market in the country. Print reporters do research and interviews for a story that ends up being about 800 words or so. Broadcasters rewrite and condense the paper's story to around 50 words - sometimes adding their own audio or video - then present it as their own."
The person complaining the most is Seattle's Tri-City Herald editor Ken Robertson. He's careful not to use words such as "stolen" and only goes as far as to say his stories were "lifted." Which makes sense because even he knows he has absolutely no copyright claim on the news itself. But if he knows that, exactly what is he complaining about? That he didn't get his pat on the back when an important news story got wider coverage?!
And I'm reminded of the recent postings involving Aretha Franklin and the producers of Britain's Got Talent. Franklin, the producers, and any newspaper writer got exactly what she or he bargained for. Franklin looked fashionable. The producers got paid for producing their show. And a newspaper writer got paid for writing stories. Why should they be given any credit beyond that? Franklin didn't make the hat fashionable. The producers did not make Boyle an incredible singer. And newspaper writers do not create news, they report on news. The sense of entitlement on such issues is quite bizarre."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: journalism, newspapers, plagiarism, reporters
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
5 Words Needed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 5 Words Needed...
Simply give credit to the source in the news broadcast... plain and simple. There are benefits two-fold
1) Credit is given to the paper news reporter, thus providing credit for the person doing the real work.
2) Cover your behind from lawsuits due to shotty research. If you say "according to X", and X is a reputable source, then if X is actually wrong, you have no liability for what you had stated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 5 Words Needed...
"1) Credit is given to the paper news reporter, thus providing credit for the person doing the real work."
Example - serial killer A is caught by policeman X, who was interviewed by reporter B for a story researched and framed by producer Y, who had possible stories pre-filtered by assitants Q, R, and S, most of whom worked for news company Z, but the selling point of the story was the photograph of the dead body taken by freelance photographer C. I would argue that EVERYONE of the lettered entities above are the originator's and/or inspiration behind the "story", none moreso perhaps than serial killer A. Who gets credited? Where does it stop? Just the name of the paper? Because why shouldn't it be the rest? And what about the freelance photographer whose image ACTUALLY made the story popular, why doesn't he get a share of the credit?
"2) Cover your behind from lawsuits due to shotty research. If you say "according to X", and X is a reputable source, then if X is actually wrong, you have no liability for what you had stated."
Great, except that this would give news groups full license to repeat absolutely retarded "journalism" from really, really bad sources without liability. Of particular note is many hate group publications and tabloids and the like have EXTREMELY innocuous names. Take the Nat'l Star -- As originally reported by The Nat'l Star (and photographer C, etc. etc.), Oprah ate Steadman and than shat him into a bowl of fruit loops and at it. Here's an artists rendition of what that would've looked like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 5 Words Needed...
On that note...
Recently, I needed a document template, and ran into a little trouble. You see, the Office Online Group headed by xx, someone I worked for, and they had this wonderful "Office Template" website and I found a Powerpoint Template for an older version of Office. The template was a 2003 version I think. (I run Office 2008, so compatibility isn't an issue.)
Anyways, I got an error message that said something to the likes of "Hey Asshole, Upgrade your Operating System and Browser: Windows ME and Windows 95 isn't supported"
Heh. I thought. You see, I did upgrade to a new operating system, by buying a mac last month, I couldn't be happier. Eventually, I found the link on the same page and ended up downloading the ".CAB" file. Thankfully OSX came with a program that could uncompress the file.
Nonetheless, the "Hey Asshole, Upgrade your Operating System and Browser: Windows ME and Windows 95 isn't supported" message was slightly annoying, and the big Exclamation mark graphics seemed a little over the top.
Have you seen the PC Choice Chat ads?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 5 Words Needed...
It's 'shoddy' not 'shotty' (not trying to be a grammar nazi.)
I have to wonder if the lack of attribution is due to exactly "Ms. Chick's" brand of "I said it first!" Carts, horses, chickens and eggs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 5 Words Needed...
Both are incredibly different. So it seems the best thing to do is to stick with acceptable standards, and in this case, de-facto may very well be okay as long as it's adhered to by others.
HOWEVER, I remain worried about the AP Styleguide changing again in 2009. The definition of sourcing (as implemented) seems to present a quantifiable and dangerous issue.
Now, I have't seen the 2008 or 2009 version, but I wish you well in better understanding the current "acceptable practices" of journalists and what actually qualifies as Journalism in this blog-filled world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 5 Words Needed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 5 Words Needed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Tri-City Herald (or Tricycle Herald as we called it) is actually on the other side of the state from Seattle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Waiting for 'News DRM'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except in New York.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090225/0321273898.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Only A Matter Of Time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newspaper?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]