Is there an echo out there?
The Northwestern's lead story today, carrying the byline of a staff reporter, remarkably has the same three opening paragraphs as an Associated Press story out of Madison.
As a member of the AP, the Northwestern has the right to use AP copy, but this seems to me to be crossing the line. By putting a staff byline on the story, the paper is telling its readers that the story in all essential details is its own. That's not the case here.
(The Post-Crescent also carries the AP story, but has it marked as an AP story.)
Tagged at the end of the Northwestern's story is a note that the AP "contributed" to the article. That seems to me backwards. It's more like the Northwestern contributed additional material to the AP story.
Claiming credit for another reporter's lead is a far cry from borrowing a bit of boilerplate language, not that either practice is considered acceptable. Keep in mind that the lead is the part of the story that reporters typically spend the most time coming up with. It's often quite personal.
Something similar happened recently with a front-page story in The New York Times. The Times is planning an editor's note to set the record straight.
Perhaps we will see some clarification from the Northwestern. Or perhaps not.
Why does this matter?
Journalists believe, and history has unfortunately taught us, that cutting one corner will often encourage the cutting of subsequent and larger corners. Jayson Blair and Jack Kelly could both have been stopped before they did so much damage to the field of journalism if someone had stopped them from cutting corners when they first started doing so.
A campus story from last week, one that I didn't see in the Northwestern, bears this out. Last week the student newspaper had to admit that it had caught one of its reporters fabricating quotes and other information for a Page One story.
As the editor noted, in a prominently displayed apology, the fabrication was the sequel to an earlier case of plagiarism, which was allowed to go unremarked upon.
It's always good to try to nip these things in the bud.
As a member of the AP, the Northwestern has the right to use AP copy, but this seems to me to be crossing the line. By putting a staff byline on the story, the paper is telling its readers that the story in all essential details is its own. That's not the case here.
(The Post-Crescent also carries the AP story, but has it marked as an AP story.)
Tagged at the end of the Northwestern's story is a note that the AP "contributed" to the article. That seems to me backwards. It's more like the Northwestern contributed additional material to the AP story.
Claiming credit for another reporter's lead is a far cry from borrowing a bit of boilerplate language, not that either practice is considered acceptable. Keep in mind that the lead is the part of the story that reporters typically spend the most time coming up with. It's often quite personal.
Something similar happened recently with a front-page story in The New York Times. The Times is planning an editor's note to set the record straight.
Perhaps we will see some clarification from the Northwestern. Or perhaps not.
Why does this matter?
Journalists believe, and history has unfortunately taught us, that cutting one corner will often encourage the cutting of subsequent and larger corners. Jayson Blair and Jack Kelly could both have been stopped before they did so much damage to the field of journalism if someone had stopped them from cutting corners when they first started doing so.
A campus story from last week, one that I didn't see in the Northwestern, bears this out. Last week the student newspaper had to admit that it had caught one of its reporters fabricating quotes and other information for a Page One story.
As the editor noted, in a prominently displayed apology, the fabrication was the sequel to an earlier case of plagiarism, which was allowed to go unremarked upon.
It's always good to try to nip these things in the bud.
posted by Miles Maguire at 1:01 PM
3 Comments:
I can't say I'm much surprised or alarmed by what The Northwestern did. With newsrooms being whittled down to almost nothing, you're going to find more and more of these collaborations/shortcuts.
And since everyone seems to be writing/carrying the same stories as everyone else these days, how long before bylines become obsolete?
Associate Press = Collaborative Media = Collective Mind
Shortcuts are fine and something the public and newsrooms alike need to get used to. What is not acceptable however, is the taking credit for something that is not theirs. That's where the problem lies and Miles is correct in pointing it out.
It's "how they always do it," according to my sources.
Cute.
Post a Comment
<< Home