As far as user comments go, I’m firmly in the registration-required camp.
My position on this goes back years to when the newspaper where I used to work launched a “vent” phone line so callers could leave messages about stories, community issues and whatnot. A selection of vents was published regularly in print (and later online). While there was an occasional nugget of wisdom, most vents fell into one of these categories: mean-spirited, bigoted, just plain stupid or outer space. Readers, of course, loved it.
The vent line bothered me for two reasons: one, the hate-filled tone the comments all too often took; and two, the lack of accountability. Callers could leave messages in comfortable anonymity, yet authors of letters to the editor had to submit their names and contact information.
For the same reasons, I deplore systems that allow readers to leave comments without registering. Unlike vent lines, online comments can appear almost instantaneously – and are often unfiltered. Sure, comments can be deleted, but once out there, the damage is done. Just ask Lara Logan.
To those who cry “censorship” at any attempt to regulate comments, I respectfully remind you that the First Amendment does not allow journalists to publish anything they damn well please. Ever heard of libel? Obscenity? Fighting words?
Read up on those before you leave your next comment.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Plagiarism ... Not?
Is it plagiarism when you reuse your own work?
Yes. And no. So say those commenting on an unapologetic admission by Mike Rosen of The Denver Post that he lifted part of a column about supply-side economics from earlier work written for ... no, not The Denver Post, but the now-defunct Rocky Mountain News.
Comments (two) on Poynter's Romenesko were firmly on the "no" side as of Devil Machine press time:
"You can no more plagiarize yourself then you can visit an unsafe haven."
"Rewriting yourself is a nonscandal. I do it occasionally, and with links to the original versions, but even if I didn't, this goes beyond being a victimless crime; in the annals of journalism, this doesn't count as a crime at all."
Reaction on Denver's Westword blog, where the issue first was raised, was more nuanced (not to mention profane). Here's a sampling:
"He's stealing money from the DP which is paying him to produce original content."
"Would the current owner of the Rocky Mountain News archives be interested in Rosen's 'borrowing' of their copyrighted material?"
"Rosen didn't plagiarize, which makes the headline wrong. A better headline and focus for the story: 'Mike Rosen Recycles Column: Do Readers Deserve to Know They're Reading a Rerun?' That's the heart of the debate, whether Rosen needed to inform readers and his employer that he was recycling. Unfortunately, it's lost under a loaded buzzword like plagiarism, and everyone is arguing about that instead of what matters."
What a robust ethical discussion this situation would prompt in a student newsroom. Should you reuse your own material? Can you plagiarize yourself? If you reuse your own material, what do you owe readers in terms of transparency? What do you owe your former employer, for whom you originally wrote the material (better check out that copyright issue)?
Yes. And no. So say those commenting on an unapologetic admission by Mike Rosen of The Denver Post that he lifted part of a column about supply-side economics from earlier work written for ... no, not The Denver Post, but the now-defunct Rocky Mountain News.
Comments (two) on Poynter's Romenesko were firmly on the "no" side as of Devil Machine press time:
"You can no more plagiarize yourself then you can visit an unsafe haven."
"Rewriting yourself is a nonscandal. I do it occasionally, and with links to the original versions, but even if I didn't, this goes beyond being a victimless crime; in the annals of journalism, this doesn't count as a crime at all."
Reaction on Denver's Westword blog, where the issue first was raised, was more nuanced (not to mention profane). Here's a sampling:
"He's stealing money from the DP which is paying him to produce original content."
"Would the current owner of the Rocky Mountain News archives be interested in Rosen's 'borrowing' of their copyrighted material?"
"Rosen didn't plagiarize, which makes the headline wrong. A better headline and focus for the story: 'Mike Rosen Recycles Column: Do Readers Deserve to Know They're Reading a Rerun?' That's the heart of the debate, whether Rosen needed to inform readers and his employer that he was recycling. Unfortunately, it's lost under a loaded buzzword like plagiarism, and everyone is arguing about that instead of what matters."
What a robust ethical discussion this situation would prompt in a student newsroom. Should you reuse your own material? Can you plagiarize yourself? If you reuse your own material, what do you owe readers in terms of transparency? What do you owe your former employer, for whom you originally wrote the material (better check out that copyright issue)?
Friday, February 11, 2011
Objectivity, Transparency and Diversity
A big story broke in medialand this week with AOL's purchase of The Huffington Post. Amid concerns about the long-term effect of media consolidation on journalism came this gem from HuffPost's Peter S. Goodman, which I found through Poynter's Romenesko:
“In the sort of journalism I am interested in practicing here, I want my reporters to reject the false idea that you simply poll people at both extremes of any issue, then paint a line down the middle and point to it as reality. We have to reject the tired notion that objectivity means the reader can get all the way to the bottom of the story and not know what to think. We do have to be objective in our journalism, but this does not mean we are empty vessels with no ideas of our own, and with no prior experiences that influence what we ultimately deliver … .”
Goodman’s column – which should be required reading for every reporter – focused mostly on political and business coverage, but its underlying messages apply to all forms of journalism. He was particularly eloquent about objectivity, transparency and diversity:
“… [O]bjectivity means that we conduct a fully open-minded inquiry. We do not begin our reporting with a fully-formed position. We do not adhere to the contentions of one think tank or political party or government organ as truth. We don't write to please our friends or sources or interest groups. Rather, we do our own reporting, our own independent thinking, our own scrutinizing. But at the end of that process, we offer a conclusion, and transparently so, with whatever caveats are in order. …
“And this sort of objectivity is the real argument for diversity in newsrooms – the need to ensure that we have people in place who can tell a greater range of stories, so that we collectively see and understand the breadth of the American experience.”
Amen, brother.
“In the sort of journalism I am interested in practicing here, I want my reporters to reject the false idea that you simply poll people at both extremes of any issue, then paint a line down the middle and point to it as reality. We have to reject the tired notion that objectivity means the reader can get all the way to the bottom of the story and not know what to think. We do have to be objective in our journalism, but this does not mean we are empty vessels with no ideas of our own, and with no prior experiences that influence what we ultimately deliver … .”
Goodman’s column – which should be required reading for every reporter – focused mostly on political and business coverage, but its underlying messages apply to all forms of journalism. He was particularly eloquent about objectivity, transparency and diversity:
“… [O]bjectivity means that we conduct a fully open-minded inquiry. We do not begin our reporting with a fully-formed position. We do not adhere to the contentions of one think tank or political party or government organ as truth. We don't write to please our friends or sources or interest groups. Rather, we do our own reporting, our own independent thinking, our own scrutinizing. But at the end of that process, we offer a conclusion, and transparently so, with whatever caveats are in order. …
“And this sort of objectivity is the real argument for diversity in newsrooms – the need to ensure that we have people in place who can tell a greater range of stories, so that we collectively see and understand the breadth of the American experience.”
Amen, brother.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Clear Like Mud
My husband got all worked up last night reading an article in The Washington Post about Dan Snyder, owner of the Washington Redskins, and his beef with a writer for a local alternative paper.
Upset about an unflattering cover story, Snyder wants the writer fired. In addition, Snyder is very interested in e-mails exchanged by the writer and a Post sports blogger.
These passages in The Post’s Feb. 2 article on the unfolding saga sparked the spousal outrage:
“According to several people with direct knowledge of the situation, Snyder's attorneys contacted The Post last week and asked the newspaper to preserve e-mails between Post sports blogger Dan Steinberg and McKenna.” (McKenna is the writer for the alt paper.)
“Steinberg declined to comment Tuesday, as did The Post.”
Among the “people with direct knowledge of the situation,” my husband reasoned, had to be someone with The Post. “And how can a paper not comment in its own story?” he demanded.
Excellent questions, aren’t they? Especially given that Washington City Paper’s coverage of the brouhaha has been much more transparent.
Looks like I have a good example for my future students on the merits of transparency and the pitfalls of anonymous sourcing.
Upset about an unflattering cover story, Snyder wants the writer fired. In addition, Snyder is very interested in e-mails exchanged by the writer and a Post sports blogger.
These passages in The Post’s Feb. 2 article on the unfolding saga sparked the spousal outrage:
“According to several people with direct knowledge of the situation, Snyder's attorneys contacted The Post last week and asked the newspaper to preserve e-mails between Post sports blogger Dan Steinberg and McKenna.” (McKenna is the writer for the alt paper.)
“Steinberg declined to comment Tuesday, as did The Post.”
Among the “people with direct knowledge of the situation,” my husband reasoned, had to be someone with The Post. “And how can a paper not comment in its own story?” he demanded.
Excellent questions, aren’t they? Especially given that Washington City Paper’s coverage of the brouhaha has been much more transparent.
Looks like I have a good example for my future students on the merits of transparency and the pitfalls of anonymous sourcing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
