I done been violated, I think

OK, AGAIN. Quotes were NOT (that's NOT) in the release; quotes were in a story distributed to member papers who have contributed to the cooperative during the season. This website was not a member of the cooperative.
Background material is not propietary; quotes are. but again QUOTES WERE NOT IN THE RELEASE.
But the website pawned off the material INCLUDING QUOTES as if it were their own. It was not sent the information or the quotes, yet it was posted on the website as if it were there.

 

The story contained material that was in the press release; the quote was in a separate bylined story -- which was not the one used on the website....

 

So are you writing these stories as a reporter covering the event and other newspapers are using it or are you covering it as the PR person for this organization? I'm confused as to your role here.

You can't both cover the event as a reporter and then serve as an official.

 

1. This is not about publicity for an award. This is about journos helping out one another in getting stuff in the paper.

2. Sounds to me like someone who has truly hit rock bottom got shut out of getting the shared info because no one likes him, so he decides to rip off the material (or see below) anyway with the expectation that no one would ever call him on it; thus further ostracizing himself from said group.

But, my question, did he rip it off a web site or did someone in the consortium send him the story?

 

Great post, PoO.

 

It seems there were two ethical violations here:

a. You wrote a news story about an event that you are a participant in, and publicist for. (As deputy grand imperial poobah of the group giving the award.)

b. The web site stole part of your story and passed it off as its own work.

You certainly have a right to be the person giving the awards, and writing up press releases about the awards.

And you certainly have a right to write about the awards.

But you have to choose.

Journalists can't cover themselves, or groups they're participating in.

Being a journalist means not taking sides. This dual role doesn't pass the smell test.

 

Wait. What?

One of the local dailies picks an all-area team, COY, etc., and hosts a banquet for the team. Are you saying they shouldn't write a story from said banquet? Seriously?

 

Either you're sending out press releases, or you're covering the event.

You can't do both.

Notice how he said he was writing a "story" for the group? No, he wasn't. He was writing a fake story, a press release.

Be in the business of writing press releases, or be in the business of journalism. Choose.

It's fine for the newspaper to write a story about awards it gives. No problem.

But if you're writing press releases, that seems to be a sure sign of not knowing what side of the fence you're on.

Be a journalist!

Or, better yet, if you are the sort who can't tell the difference between journalism and PR, be a flak!

 

yeah, i'm with suburbs. the more i read this, the more i don't understand the thread.

if you send out a press release, who cares who gets it? you're trying to publicize something and every hit you get helps.

and if you're a sports writer, there's simply no wiggle room on this -- you can't send out a press release.

so for me, what the writer did is way worse than what he's complaining about

 

The argument was never about publicizing the award; that was made clear (I thought).
Where the problem came from was attribution of a story (not a press release) with quotes with the attribution from that .com's staff reports when it was not from their staff. The attribution has been changed by the website so it does not read as if their staff wrote it as an original story. I'm good with that and that editor is too.

The press release -- and story -- were written for the state Sports Writers Association and its Mr. Football award. To think that an outside source should be writing press releases for a sportswriting group and its presentation of the award is just flat out stupid. And yes suburbs, despite what you thought, I wrote two things: a press release and a story. The story had quotes and the release didn't; there was no fake story and I'm sorry you can't wrap your head around that. Newspapers around the state could understand that. And ran the story knowing what was going on. There was no deception or trying to be something it wasn't.

Actually, despite what suburbs thinks you can do both. I wouldn't make it a habit and I haven't made it career. But I am quite comfortable with providing both story and a release to a group of sportswriters and their papers on who won their player of the year award. I wasn't covering myself. But with several papers in the state participating in the whole process and only a handful having a dog in the fight, they also should have someone from their organization writing about the award, should they not?

 

Yes, your paper and others should have someone writing about the award, but not someone whose job it is to publicize the event. And if a Web site stole your story, it's not your fight. It's up to your editor and publisher to go after them.

Oh, the conflict is not about other newspapers. Disclosing a conflict of interest is used to inform the readers.

 

I'm pretty sure we've established that this wasn't a "press release" in the official, pr-flak sense.

The dude was helping out other papers who couldn't attend, papers that had scratched his paper's back before. We've all been there.

As for the original question, it would be hard for me to get worked up about a dot.com swiping a quote about a HS football banquet. But that's just me.