4 ms·

I remember reading Chris Dixon's original post. I even popped the question to a friend... "Pop Quiz.. Name one game other than Angry Birds that Rovio had produc

I remember reading Chris Dixon's original post. I even popped the question to a friend... "Pop Quiz.. Name one game other than Angry Birds that Rovio had produced". He named three... all of them being Angry Birds update releases. lol. MG Siegler has had multiple rants about mainstream news outlets not attributing him for scoops and releases. http://tinyurl.com/mgsieglerrant http://tinyurl.com/mgsieglerrant "The Wallstreet Journal is Fucking Bullshit" http://parislemon.com/post/18182094905/the-wall-street-journal-is-fucking-bullshit http://parislemon.com/post/18182094905/the-wall-street-journ...

nchlswu 15y ago
There was some interesting discussion about bloggers breaking news and attribution here: http://gigaom.com/2012/02/25/is-linking-just-polite-or-is-it-a-core-value-of-journalism/ http://gigaom.com/2012/02/25/is-linking-just-polite-or-is-it... (and in related twitter discussions) I'm not entirely familiar with 'old media' practices, but I always thought if two news outlets independently confirmed a news story they didn't acknowledge whoever broke the story first. Or if another news outlet breaks a story, they independently confirm and don't give attribution, since technically, they confirmed the story, so it's 'their news.' I've only heard a news source attribute another source when news is breaking in real time (i.e. X is reporting 7 are dead at the scene). Breaking a story != confirming or actually being a journalist's source. In some cases, attribution is very important - like in the original post. However, I think a lot of 'new media' beef with old media practices is just a shift in ideology . Bloggers are closer to the action and transparency is more important. Old media is much more rigorous but is less transparent. I personally think the best approach is something in between the two.
- msredmond 15y ago
  You basically have the 'old media' practices right, but there's some variances. So yes, let's say your competitor breaks a story -- if they're the only ones and you write it up based on them bringing the story to your attention, you should give them credit, whether or not that's your only verification that the story happened. However, if you feel that you would have gotten the story anyhow (or, even more likely, you were both working on it at the same time, and they just happened to publish first -- this happens all the time), as long as you were independently able to verify and really didn't rely on them for story, you don't have to credit. And this is a good thing -- you don't want reporters to rush their reporting over something silly like credit. But it's a trust thing, just like sourcing overall is. Another variance: Let's say, for example, that a clown is riding a horse in Time Square, and for some reason you want that story for your Washington state paper. You really shouldn't write about it until you can independently verify. But you can't because you don't have reporters or sources on the scene, and you don't want to credit just the NYT. So then the Boston Globe reports it, then Wash Post -- and all three say they've independently verified the story (vs. citing original NYT report). THEN you can pretty much assume it's fact, then you don't really need to source the papers -- you can say according to multiple reports (or say nothing at all). It also falls back to you can't copyright facts, just the language the information is presented. As a journalist you're responsible for making sure the facts are correct (generally held at 3 sources, whatever they are), but once you've done that, you can go for it. But that's why just not sourcing someone (bad practice) is nothing close to the linked example because plagiarism (exact language = violating copyright) is something you can get sued for. Probably WAY more info than anyone wanted, but FYI in case it helps.
Kylekramer 15y ago
I think Felix Salmon's response was a good defense of the old media: http://felixsalmon.tumblr.com/post/18191067872/the-wall-street-journal-is-fucking-bullshit http://felixsalmon.tumblr.com/post/18191067872/the-wall-stre... New media is obsessed with credit and scoops. You can claim this is a moral thing, but I'd more likely attribute it to finance. New media makes all its money off clicks and views rather than subscriptions, so flash in the pan scoops are much more profitable for them than old media. It isn't incumbent on a journalist to indicate where all everything that contributed to an article came from (that is strictly in a "nice to have but not essential" category), just ensure all the information they provide is cited. The OP's article is a dicer situation of clear plagiarism, but I think new media has a dollar sign sized chip in its shoulder about linking and credit.

nchlswu 15y ago

There was some interesting discussion about bloggers breaking news and attribution here: http://gigaom.com/2012/02/25/is-linking-just-polite-or-is-it-a-core-value-of-journalism/ http://gigaom.com/2012/02/25/is-linking-just-polite-or-is-it... (and in related twitter discussions) I'm not entirely familiar with 'old media' practices, but I always thought if two news outlets independently confirmed a news story they didn't acknowledge whoever broke the story first. Or if another news outlet breaks a story, they independently confirm and don't give attribution, since technically, they confirmed the story, so it's 'their news.' I've only heard a news source attribute another source when news is breaking in real time (i.e. X is reporting 7 are dead at the scene). Breaking a story != confirming or actually being a journalist's source. In some cases, attribution is very important - like in the original post. However, I think a lot of 'new media' beef with old media practices is just a shift in ideology . Bloggers are closer to the action and transparency is more important. Old media is much more rigorous but is less transparent. I personally think the best approach is something in between the two.

msredmond 15y ago
You basically have the 'old media' practices right, but there's some variances. So yes, let's say your competitor breaks a story -- if they're the only ones and you write it up based on them bringing the story to your attention, you should give them credit, whether or not that's your only verification that the story happened. However, if you feel that you would have gotten the story anyhow (or, even more likely, you were both working on it at the same time, and they just happened to publish first -- this happens all the time), as long as you were independently able to verify and really didn't rely on them for story, you don't have to credit. And this is a good thing -- you don't want reporters to rush their reporting over something silly like credit. But it's a trust thing, just like sourcing overall is. Another variance: Let's say, for example, that a clown is riding a horse in Time Square, and for some reason you want that story for your Washington state paper. You really shouldn't write about it until you can independently verify. But you can't because you don't have reporters or sources on the scene, and you don't want to credit just the NYT. So then the Boston Globe reports it, then Wash Post -- and all three say they've independently verified the story (vs. citing original NYT report). THEN you can pretty much assume it's fact, then you don't really need to source the papers -- you can say according to multiple reports (or say nothing at all). It also falls back to you can't copyright facts, just the language the information is presented. As a journalist you're responsible for making sure the facts are correct (generally held at 3 sources, whatever they are), but once you've done that, you can go for it. But that's why just not sourcing someone (bad practice) is nothing close to the linked example because plagiarism (exact language = violating copyright) is something you can get sued for. Probably WAY more info than anyone wanted, but FYI in case it helps.

Kylekramer 15y ago

I think Felix Salmon's response was a good defense of the old media: http://felixsalmon.tumblr.com/post/18191067872/the-wall-street-journal-is-fucking-bullshit http://felixsalmon.tumblr.com/post/18191067872/the-wall-stre... New media is obsessed with credit and scoops. You can claim this is a moral thing, but I'd more likely attribute it to finance. New media makes all its money off clicks and views rather than subscriptions, so flash in the pan scoops are much more profitable for them than old media. It isn't incumbent on a journalist to indicate where all everything that contributed to an article came from (that is strictly in a "nice to have but not essential" category), just ensure all the information they provide is cited. The OP's article is a dicer situation of clear plagiarism, but I think new media has a dollar sign sized chip in its shoulder about linking and credit.