Removing sourcing info from a story: major ethical violation or SOP?

No, you don't. If you confirm the information on your own, you don't have to credit the other newspaper. Basic journalism here.

I know this situation isn't like that, but the basic premise is true. If you really want to follow the letter of the law, you need to write you learned through your competitor that he received a job offer and you confirmed it with him.

 

So what? Unless they have some information you can't confirm, I would not credit them. Ever.

 

And there we have that again. What purpose does it serve not to credit another newspaper? Do you think your readers are suddenly going to switch newspapers because they provided you with a piece of information?

 

I don't see the need to acknowledge who was first. Only the need to acknowledge information that you cannot get or confirm.

If there is a double homicide on Podunk Street, would you credit the police scanner for alerting you to it?

 

The police scanner did not knowingly collect information. The newspaper did.

Again, it's just that I think it's an outdated notion that we're battling a "competitor" with our sourcing.

 

I think there's a different between Ace's two scenarios (the given, and the scanner). In the original case, someone in our industry has done the (good) work of reporting on it first. It's only fair and ethical to credit that source. Anyone else wouldn't have known to make that phone call to the super that night had it not been for the published source.

Had it not been for the published report, the reporter's questions would have been different and the subject's answers would very likely have been different in a significant way.

On the other side of the issue, if the original published report happens to be incorrect or in any way inaccurate it can also help the second source paper and reporter save face, even if in a small way.

Perhaps a good way to illustrate this is to use a presidential election night as an example. As results come in, the networks all want to be first at predicting that Florida goes Candidate A, Ohio goes to Candidate B, etc. And when one network isn't quite sure, the anchor almost always will say "and NBC is reporting that Candidate A will win Florida."

The scanner issue is entirely different. That information is being broadcasted over the waves in real time between dispatchers and law enforcement personnel. If a reporter happens to hear of a murder-suicide at 4:32 p.m., then that reporter will likely mention "and the call for help was received by emergency officials at 4:29 p.m.," or words to that effect.

 

So if you credit a competitor for reporting something first -- even by hours or minutes -- what about a story where your paper is first.

Do you write that it's first reported by the Podunk Press every time?

 

Yikes. It's even been on the Big State Daily newsblog a couple times, that he was a finalist, and they still missed it completely? Good times, good times. (Although really, Mr. AS on that blog loves to take stories from your chain, mine and the third place, and just re-write them so you can't tell he's plagiarizing...)

 

True but I've been sourced on a regular basis in both the daily paper and on the various TV channels so I feel it's only fair.

And, yes, our sister paper apparently had its head up its ass last night.

 

Well, here's where some, or many, might disagree with me. My answer to your question is, generally, no. In the Daily News, it's never "It's the second straight win for Chicago. As first reported by the Daily News, The Cubs beat the Brewers last night 4-2 after Ryan Sandberg doubled with the based loaded ..."

I would save the crediting of other media outlets for breaking a story first only for irregular situations, or those considered by the locals as politically sensitive. The city manager gets arrested for DUI, for example. Riggleman resigns as Nationals manager, is another example.

In my area, a state agency wanted (and, later, did) close popular ORV trails on public land from public access. The trails had been available to the public, up to this point, for years. A reporter broke the story. Other area media outlets (including the Associated Press) played catch up. In follow-up stories, the reporter included, somewhere in that follow-up, "as first reported by the Daily News March 5 ..."

Same area. New scenario. At a local school board meeting, two or more media outlets attended as they normally do. The next morning, they each had different top stories. One media outlet had missed the main story so bad it wasn't even funny. So when the issue warranted a follow-up story, that reporter, too, put "as first reported by the Daily News two days ago," or similar words.

I think it's important to compete for stories. It makes, or should make, both sides better. And when the other side wins, I figure it's the professional thing to do to give them credit. Like many other things in the business, it might come down to judgment call and, perhaps, one's perspective. Lord knows there are enough people in the business to realize there will be different opinions on matters such as this.

 

I could see crediting a complex story to another newspaper. If an investigation uncovers a pattern of pedophile coaches or money shenanigans in ahtletic departments, etc.

But I would not credit another source for being first for a story of some guy getting a new job or someone being arrested or whatever basic news story that you can confirm independently.

 

I always took that for code to mean "we haven't bothered to check this out ourselves."