I done been violated, I think

In our shop, "Staff Reports" is code for "we took all these press releases, boiled them down to their newsworthiest essence, and rewrote them in something resembling our style."

As I said above, and 93-D concurred, solve the problem by adding footballblab.com to your release list next time.

 

The release went out to member papers in the group -- and we've established a sharing cooperative with scores and stories if needed. Give and take when needed
Said .com is all take, no give.
It probably wouldn't bother me except for the quote. And 93, I am neither an SID or PR flak. I am a reporter, quite uncomfortable seeing someone who should know better pawn off work -- including quotes -- as their own product, when it was not their own work, nor intended for use by .com.

 

It sounds to me like the releases were sent from you as the grand marshal. If this site took quote that ran in your paper that weren't on the press releases, it's bad.
This is really no big deal. The issue you have isn't this specific incident; it sounds like your more angry because they don't help you out the way you want.

 

Not entirely true, because we don;t want shit from them.
They weren't give the information for a reason; then passed it off as their own -- including quotes. More irksome than anything, and won't be forgotten.

 

I think Moddy should input on this, Slap.

I think your definition of a release and my definition of a release are different. When I think "release" I think open to everyone, not just a selected few.

 

Only way this is OK is in the unlikely scenario that the site subscribes to AP -- and I'm guessing it doesn't.

 

You're missing the point, Slap. The .com IS giving you something -- more exposure of your group's award, further validating it among the high school football cognoscenti. The .com is deeming it newsworthy, passing it along to its readers. Maybe you don't like how they cover the sport, but that's irrelevant. Why would you not want the widest possible exposure of your award?

 

Rain down the lawyers on them

 

If an SID from Texas Tech sent out a release saying its players were doing a charity car wash, they would not care if a .com found the release on the floor of the bus. If it was published, that is all they care about.

 

When I worked at a suburban daily, we'd see listings from the bigger paper a few towns over or weeklies on the fringes of our coverage area (we covered a wide swath of territory) and sometimes come up with good story ideas from them -- but we'd call the place first, just to make sure the information was accurate and that we could use it.

Slappy used the term "press release," but I don't even know if it's the right usage of the term. It was a story for limited distribution to a handful of outlets. It's not like every paper in the state received it -- only dailies involved in selecting the award and AP.

 

There's what I don't get. Do you NOT want your award publicized? If you do, take the publicity where you can get it!

 

Semi-related question: Suppose you are writing a book on the history of the Crabtree Bowl. Let's say while recounting somethiing that happened in the 1963 game, you use a quote what was published in the Los Angeles Post. The quote is from one of the coaches from the postgame press conference. The game was attended by tons of newspapers and was nationally televised. Isn't that sort of like public domain stuff? Same situation, but it's from a feature story by the L.A. Post leading up to the game, so it's "exclusive" to the paper. Is it fair game? In both situations, you don't cite the Post as in, "Coach Smith told the Los Angeles Post," and you don't use footnotes in this specific instance. However, in the forward of your book you list the Post and all sources from which you obtained information. Are you OK?