Gannett stomps on employees' rights to free speech

And one other point, which I haven't made earlier, but have seen made on the paper's comments thread:

Several of the Wisconsin papers ran nearly exactly the same column. Only they changed the lede, and some of the wording later on. Yet, they used each editor's byline.

How is that not considered plagiarism? Which, I would think, would be a violation of the ethics statement?

 

Lot of fine lines here. But I think employees should be able to sign petitions but not give money. And I certainly think you should be able to sign a petition regarding an election if you're going to vote in elections.

 

It's plagiarism if permission wasn't given. "Plagiarism" implies the words were somehow misappropriated.

Since the issue affected multiple papers in the Gannett family, and given the fact that multiple editors used the same verbiage, it's logical to assume the editors worked together to craft a unified statement, then put their own names on it.

It's laziness, to be sure, but it's a stretch to call it plagiarism. Romenesko does raise the question about whether it's an violation of Gannett's ethics policy, though.

 

I was always taught that plagiarism was passing someone else's work off as your own.

Had they just put all three editors' bylines, then I could see it being fine. The fact that each of them slapped their own byline on it is unseemly.

 

Consider the possibility that all three of them worked on the piece together. At worst, it's mildly deceptive to use a singular credit line.

Plus, consider the fact that these aren't news stories ... they're statements from the three newspapers (and vetted by corporate, I'm sure) about the situation. Indeed, in two instances, the pieces were attributed to the publishers of the papers.

Of all the things that cause concern about the way Gannett does business, this is hardly the place to draw the line.

 

I would argue that the statements are part of the original news story, which was about the judges who signed the petition. It's a follow-up.

If a person read just one of the statements, they're going to assume that editor wrote it. Finding out that three people wrote three statements that are very similiar can put doubt in the reader's mind about whether the words are the writer's, or if they stole the ideas.

What they should have done is just issued a joint statement involving the three papers, with three bylines.

 

Is it against Gannett policy to register for a political party?

 

With all due respect, you're making much ado about precious little. Anyone with the interest or inclination to read all three pieces is going to have the wherewithal to understand the context since the pieces refer to organizations in Gannett's Wisconsin Media Group.

In a perfect situation, it would have run unbylined or with some broader overline (A Note to Our Readers or somesuch) and this whole issue would be moot. But, OK, it didn't. Which makes the argument all about mechanics rather than intent.

We all agree: Gannett blows. But this issue seems like a who-cares? place to draw a line in the ethical sand.

 

It's a symptom of the larger problem.

How can Gannett lecture its employees about ethics when, while they're doing it, utilize a method that, if their employees did it, would be seen as unethical?

 

When I first got in the business I was pretty gung-ho about the whole "stay impartial/no political activity" thing. And as I've gotten older I've concluded, fuck it - I live here too.

The petition thing is a good example. Petitioning is part of the American political process. If it's an issue that affects me, I'll sign the petition. Prohibiting someone from signing a petition is damn close to telling someone they can't vote. (And while I get the distinction SF Express suggested about voting being private while petition signing is not, that doesn't tip the scales for me. I would still vote, even if my vote were made public.)

I wouldn't use my position to try to influence something politically. If I used my personal car on the job, I wouldn't put political stickers on it. I think you'd be hard pressed to determine my political leanings based on my work.

But on my own time, in ways unconnected to my job? It's my community too. I'm raising my kids here. I have a stake in things.

 

Anyone who would tell me I can't sign a petition would be told to go to hell, and that's on a good day.

 

Given the totality of the circumstances, if you're convinced this is truly an ethical failure rather than a procedural shortcoming, then rail away.

Me? I appreciate a good moral indignation and hackle-raising as much as anyone, but I don't see this as a battle worth picking.