3 ms·
There's a term for that in journalism: "matching" a story. This traditionally involves legwork, such as contacting the same sources quoted in the first article
by aalam 5y ago
There's a term for that in journalism: "matching" a story. This traditionally involves legwork, such as contacting the same sources quoted in the first article to verify that facts are true.
This legwork is usually done by traditionally respected publications (i.e. not just copying and pasting). Other outlets and blogs with different goals do blatantly copy and paste, which produces articles less valuable than those traditionally matched.
Matching—versus copying and pasting—is important because it avoids the spread of false reports. From "The Elements of Journalism" by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel: "Originality is a bulwark of better journalism, deeper understanding, and more accurate reporting. […] In the era before curation and aggregation, the tradition of “matching” stories was rooted in the same idea. Rather than publishing another news outlet’s scoop, journalists tended to require one of their reporters to call a source to confirm it first. This tradition of matching was a way for news organizations to avoid having to credit their rivals, which in this earlier era was considered an embarrassing admission of being scooped. Yet the tradition of matching had another more important and salutary effect. Stories that couldn’t be independently confirmed would not be repeated."
A norm in the journalism industry is to credit the first publication who reported an investigative scoop, naming the outlet (e.g. this New York Times article [0] cites information reported by less-read Punchbowl News).
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/21/us/joe-biden https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/21/us/joe-biden
- kalium-xyz 5y agoIve not ever seen the positive effects of this on internet journalism rather than echoing with less details and obfuscating actual information.
- aalam 5y agoThere can be positive effects of matching a story, but it depends on the journalists and the publication. Let's say The Wall Street Journal publishes a major investigative scoop, but you only pay for a Washington Post subscription. The Washington Post then matches the story to give readers access to the information, maybe with additional information or a unique angle, and sends a push notification to readers with the app. The WaPo article cites, and likely links, the WSJ if readers want to read the original report, and its readers become aware of the news. That is the high-quality, professional version of matching. The low-quality, unprofessional version is echoing a story for clicks, but you're less likely to run into this if you are a newspaper subscriber who reads reports from publication apps (or alternatively, a reader who curates high-quality sources of reporting without paywalls).
- kalium-xyz 5y agoI only run into matching while trying to find more information on a topic only to conclude that all the sources I find are just matching the initial article. Its an unfortunate side effect of the top down view search engines allow us I guess. Unfortunate cause its very frustrating and can waste up to an hour or so of your day if there are a few dozen articles on a subject. I should add that I dont follow any news sites accept aggregators. I can imagine that I would have issues with a local newspaper which I trust not reporting to me that the minister president was shot even though they could not possible have the scoop.