And I Thought Rupert Murdoch Thought Copying Stories From Other Publications Was 'Stealing'
from the tsk-tsk dept
You may remember, not so long ago, Rupert Murdoch was running around claiming that other publications "stole" from him. He gave a speech where he warned:"The aggregators and plagiarists will soon have to pay a price for the co-opting of our content."Of course, around that time, we highlighted the fact that Murdoch, himself, owned a whole bunch of aggregators, many of which acted much worse than the sites -- such as Google -- that Murdoch was complaining about.
However, over the weekend there was a nice example of how one of Murdoch's publications clearly copied a story from another publication and did not give any credit for it whatsoever. We noted earlier how Broadband Reports broke the story of AT&T deciding to put in place metered billing. Broadband Reports got a tip with a leaked email showing the new rules, and got confirmation from AT&T. Nearly every other report on the story credited Broadband Reports with breaking the story. However, when the WSJ (via Dow Jones Newswire) wrote the story, by reporter Roger Cheng, there is no mention whatsoever of Broadband Reports breaking the story.
Now, a few quick points, I don't think that every publication should necessarily have to credit who breaks a story. It's often the neighborly thing to do, and I think that many people appreciate it when it's done. But news is news, and if it's factual, then there's no proprietary nature to it. So, my complaint isn't simply that Dow Jones/WSJ didn't credit BBR. What I take issue with is when a company comes out and states, repeatedly, that it is going to crack down on other sites that copy its work -- who often do it while providing credits and links back -- and then chooses to publish without credit, that seems hypocritical. Don't say one thing and do another.
Of course, some others will (correctly) point out that Cheng appears to have contacted AT&T himself, and added a few tidbits to the story (even if it's been pointed out that he seemed to unquestionably accept AT&T's claim of congestion). So, defenders will claim this is "okay" because he did "additional independent reporting." And, again, it's great that Cheng did additional reporting. But it doesn't change that it appears BBR had the original report, and got the info out there. Even with the additional reporting, it appears that the WSJ was able to create a news report off of a lead from BBR. And this goes right back to the claims of Bill Keller last week in which he seemed to be saying when the NY Times builds off someone else's work, that's journalism. When new media sites do it, it's piracy. It's too bad that these newspapers claim that they're so against such things, but have no problem doing it themselves. Again, most of the actual actions that they do are fine... by themselves. But doing those things after claiming to be against them in others... that's hypocrisy.
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: copying, credit, journalism
Companies: news corp.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is no word - there is no concept....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypocrites...
~Ron Rezendes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Probably the same amount of "proof" that good ol' Ruppie had to back up his claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the article: "some others will (correctly) point out that Cheng appears to have contacted AT&T himself"
Seriously, if you're going to make fun of what I say, at least try to state things that I didn't already answer in the post. I mean, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nope. They heard about the news (it was all over the place in minutes) and then followed up and got THEIR OWN STORY.
I can understand the slam if they copied their story verbatim, but it appears this isn't the case. What exactly is your issue then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The sites Murdoch complained about weren't using the story's verbatim either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tell me the fable about the immaculate conception of this story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, have you ever been in a newsroom? Have you ever known a working journalist? Have you ever talked to a newspaper editor? Because it's pretty clear that you never have. You have a very bizarre fantasy about how journalism works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
have you ever been in a newsroom? Yes, repeatedly Have you ever known a working journalist? More than a few Have you ever talked to a newspaper editor?more than one at a time Because it's pretty clear that you never have. you would be wrong here You have a very bizarre fantasy about how journalism works No, just an understanding that information arrives from various directions at various times, and that in these modern time, a "story" is often converted time and time again, through tweets, blogs, re-writes, emails, re-dos, and so on, often ending up on wire services, in reporter's in boxes, or as rumors in chat rooms that lead reporters to follow up
There is no proof that (a) the WSJ reporter copied directly off the DSL reports story, and (b) that the DSL reports people were the only ones with the information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly. Which is why it's insane for Murdoch to attack modern journalists as thieves and pirates.
As for the rest of your stuff, frankly I don't believe you at all, and I don't see why I would. You are just an unidentified green dot, and you are making everything you say up off the top of your head - it's pretty obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sort of different from a site using the titles and first couple of paragraph of a story as search engine food.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110310/12551713431/nytimes-when-we-do-it-its-journalism-wh en-huffpo-does-it-its-piracy.shtml#c3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also though, I forgot I was talking to a small lump of igneous rock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That way we will know that you are just lazy instead of wondering about your reading comprehension. The post states:
"Of course, some others will (correctly) point out that Cheng appears to have contacted AT&T himself"
Reading. It is a life skill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's unlikely that it was collected separately. If they got it from someone who got it from broadband reports, the WSJ should have done some basic journalism and found out that the original came from broadband reports.
Besides, if this were the other way around, if someone posted a story that first came from the WSJ, in the matter of seconds the WSJ would accuse the other person of infringement/plagiarism, instead of assuming that the other source did their own legwork. Especially if the other source put the info out second. This is more than enough evidence for the Murdoch to accuse others of infringement/plagiarism and they would probably make such accusations with far less evidence even. So why is the standard of proof much less to show that others copied the mainstream media but it's much higher to show that the mainstream media copied others? and don't give me the unsubstantiated assumption that the mainstream media somehow does more/better journalism and so they should be given the benefit of the doubt but not anyone else. The MSM are hypocrites and they know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I like that - "The Murdoch".
I'm going to refer to him as "The Murdoch" from now on... makes me want to come up with Monster Manual stats for him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plagiarism or Coincidence - You be the judge
If WSJ's Cheng became aware of this story apart from any other published source, then it's a coincidence. I don't know. But I do know that Cheng's story followed BBR's.
If old media sites want to make demands on new media, they ought to lead by example and give credit where credit is due.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Plagiarism or Coincidence - You be the judge
Obviously, it would be something getting plenty of play. There are plenty of other sources out there writing stories about it:
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/gigaom/media/video_att_bandwidth_cap_netflix.html
http ://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=13134261
Even the sainted Wired:
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/03/att-dsl-cap/
with absolutely no mention of DSL Reports.
Now, there is also the question "Did the AT&T guy speak to anyone else" or was anyone else there when the statement was made? For that matter, did the DSL Reports guy talk to anyone? Did anyone post about it on twitter? Was it discussed and reposted?
Mike should be more concerned about sites like this:
http://www.prhwy.com/news/7521-att-uverse-imposes-monthly-cap-limitations-on-internet-usage .html
Clearly, that would be a complete duplication of the story with no attribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Plagiarism or Coincidence - You be the judge
It is the reason, if this were the other way around, if Murdoch put the story out first and then broadband reports put their story out second (after calling), Murdoch would be jumping up and down complaining about others copying him. It would be enough evidence for him, that's for sure. So when the same or greater evidence comes out against Murdoch, I will reasonably assume it's because Murdoch did copy others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Plagiarism or Coincidence - You be the judge
So given his history of doing this sort of thing, no, he does not get the benefit of the doubt, I will reasonably assume he is guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Plagiarism or Coincidence - You be the judge
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0416086107.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Plagiarism or Coincidence - You be the judge
Besides, Rubert Murdoch (or at least his organizations) is known to copy others without citation, in the past at least one of his employees has even admit to it.
So given his history of doing this sort of thing, no, he does not get the benefit of the doubt, I will reasonably assume he is guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Plagiarism or Coincidence - You be the judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Plagiarism or Coincidence - You be the judge
We don't know. It's a really big jump to get on Murdoch's case when we just don't know how the story played out. We don't even know if the "exclusive" story on DSL Reports was in fact exclusive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Plagiarism or Coincidence - You be the judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if it's News Corp Murdoch? You big happy left winger running a supposedly right wing news network, you.
Sorry, this guy is 'NWO' order all the way. He would like nothing better than a corporate/state controlled world. Say what you like, but there are people with that agenda. That much is certain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, have you ever been in a newsroom? Have you ever known a working journalist? Have you ever talked to a newspaper editor? Because it's pretty clear that you never have. You have a very bizarre fantasy about how journalism works.
Clarify and say "how perceived official corporate news sources work".
News is whatever people think is news and however they want to deliver it. I agree that plagiarism has no place in either, but the big corporations want to tout some "holier than though, we own it" concept, all the while - ripping the news off like ANY second rate blog.
Doesn't matter what goes on in a news room, the only thing that matters is what product is delivered to the public, otherwise news has no use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which is fine - I have a similar opinion of big corporate news sources. They have stock to worry about, they will give a pass to some people they may consider 'esteemed' - it's evident in the spin.
Like - watch the dragging of Charlie Sheen or Madoff through the mud and then compare to others that come up in the news. Usually they are all too happy to drag people through the mud, but on occasion you'll see the 'apologist' style applied to 'certain people'.
There are too many reasons a big corporate news source has to play games with the facts - especially if it's profitable somehow.
Plus, whenever we have a big disaster, it's time for them to put on a show with snazzy graphics, cool logos and themes too!
I like how Fox always comes up with what I consider a 'jingle phrase' on each disaster and such.
Like ba-boom, "Tsunami in Japan, day 2" or "Crisis in the Middle East" Do they trademark that too?
Or whatever, sorry the only 'official news' source I entertain at all now is my local paper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cheap nfl jerseys
cheap nfl jerseys
The best preparation for tomorrow is doing your best today!Believe in yourself.We have the most affordable shirt, best service and quality.Believe us, you won't regret it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]