1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Romenesko and Poynter

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by beanpole, Nov 10, 2011.

  1. beanpole

    beanpole Member

    I know that Romensko is pretty widely read here, but I was pretty surprised to see today's post.

    Poynter.org works hard to meet the highest standards of journalism excellence, and I learned late Wednesday that we have not consistently met those standards.
    A centerpiece of our editorial work has been the Romenesko blog, which invented a form of aggregation that is widely and deservedly respected. It is also imperfect.
    Thanks to the sharp eye of an assistant editor at the Columbia Journalism Review, I now know that Jim Romenesko’s posts exhibit a pattern of incomplete attribution.

    Romenesko offered his resignation, but it was declined. I can buy his statement that he was trying to put everything in the source's words, but a journalism watchdog site can't afford to cut corners.

  2. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    That's what happens when you get lazy.
  3. McNuggetsMan

    McNuggetsMan Active Member

    I really don't see the huge deal. He writes "the paper writes" and "according to blah blah blah" all the time in his short posts and provides direct links. He also quotes pretty extensively. Does anyone really read that paragraph and not think it's a direct summary of the tribune story? This doesn't strike me as a guy trying to pass other people's work off as his own.

    Poynter should turn more attention to not being ESPN's lap dog and not get into an uproar of this crap.
  4. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    I don't think industry professionals think he's doing a straight copy-and-paste job.
  5. fishwrapper

    fishwrapper Active Member

    I suppose I see the issue. I guess.
    But Romenesko used phraseology such as "The Tribune notes that" and "The paper reports" and "The paper found that the kinds of records it wants..."
    Don't get me wrong, quotes should have been used. But Romenesko wasn't, at least in my eyes, trying to pass the work off as his own.
    He qualified three paragraphs with attribution. Hardly a burn-at-the-stake moment for me.
  6. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    That's why I used the term lazy, because he's an aggregator who should get the benefit of the doubt one time. If he's done it with other posts, it's a little more serious.
  7. Small Town Guy

    Small Town Guy Well-Known Member

    I'm with Gawker:

  8. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    He's still got Starbucksgossip.com.
  9. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

  10. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Yeah, soon enough it's going to flip-turn into nobody caring about plagiarism charges anymore, because the charges that get lodged are often so ridiculous. This would be the most ridiculous case.

    Poynter has really fallen out of touch in the last 5-10 years. Worthless to the news industry anymore.
  11. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

  12. goalmouth

    goalmouth Well-Known Member

    It's Poynter's way of seeing Romenesko and his $170K salary out the door. Moos is the axperson.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page