When it is an exclusive???

This morning, our office manager brought in a paper from a nearby town, that ran a overline above a story headline that said "(paper's name) exclusive," in bold print. The same news story ran on the 10 p.m. news last night in the state's largest city. Our newsroom was about equally split on whether this was really an exclusive. If they were the only paper with the story in today's paper is it an exclusive? Or is that overline misleading, considering the story was on television? Also, how often does your paper use the exclusive tag on a story? Do most papers claim a story is exclusive after the story has been on television or radio?

 

In my experience, an exclusive is when I and one of the local TV guys are the only two media people to attend a Jerry Stackhouse appearance at the area HS when Stackhouse is gearing up for the NBA draft. (HS nowhere near where Stackhouse is from; he was in town for a UNC player's camp.) Then, when we interview Stackhouse, TV guy holds his camera and mike and I ask every question.

Afterwards, TV guy goes on the 6 o'clock news and touts his "exclusive" interview with Jerry Stackhouse.

That's my definition.

 

Exclusive.

When you have it.
And others don't.

 

It's a dangerous term to use. In a 24-7 journalism world, a newspaper can claim exclusivity when it goes to press. Between the time the press stops and the paper hits doorsteps, dozens of outlets may have gotten the same story.

 

Something that happened before the Internet. ;D

 

Whenever I write a story.

Bam!!!

 

When I was starting out, there was a nearby 50K daily that ran "exclusive" tags (on its pro beat coverage, no less) all the time, and I believed it was asinine in most instances. They did a good job in lots of ways, but the constant crowing about how great they were seemed undignified and unprofessional, like a carnival barker. And, really, no matter how many "exclusive" tags it ran, it was unlikely that readers were going to perceive it as beating the pants off the major metros on significant news.

A few years later, I got a job at a paper that used to throw a "Copyright 1982 by The Daily Enema" under the writer's byline on the lead sports story probably every other week. It's maybe a little more subtle than A DAILY DOUCHEBAG EXCLUSIVE! overline. But the sole purpose, in that midsize city, was so AP would pick it up and say in the lead paragraph "The Daily Enema reported Monday in a copyright story" and then other papers in the state would have to credit us over some factoid that did not exactly alter the course of mankind even for a week. Unless, of course, it ran as a one-sentence brief in the other papers because we had overestimated the magnificence of our scoop. But I'd been brainwashed. After a couple years there, I moved to a paper three times the size in a three-daily city, and when I was new there, I asked the SE if we should copyright a relatively trivial story and he looked at me like I needed a dose of Thorazine. Calm down. We compete against professional journalists -- the most frequent result is a three-way tie, so it's not smart to predict a victory at 10 p.m. because we'll look like assholes if everyone else gets the story in the next hour in time for the press run.

I understand taking pride in being first, and I understand that some people I respect here will have a dissenting view. But I submit that when you yap about it all the fucking time over relatively trivial items, it has the opposite effect on many readers -- it becomes a joke rather than a selling point.

 

Well said and right on target.

 

It's vastly overused and misused. I'd say for every 10 times I hear about an exclusive interview, there's one time it's someone that hasn't talked to other media outlets about the same things in the same news cycle. It's an easy crutch of a tease, something you see a lot on the pay recruiting sites. The practice is hardly exclusive to them ...