Is this unethical?

[CCaple]

The lead from a story published on Dec. 5, 2008, in a student newspaper:

Archie Butt****er appeared for a weekly media gathering a few weeks ago, took a few questions about his recovery from knee surgery and was ready to leave when a reporter noticed some stitches under the Podunk forward’s right eye.

“Is that a Joe Schmoe battle scar?” the reporter inquired.

Butt****er laughed.

“That is a Joe Schmoe battle scar, yes,” he replied. “Just caught a good old-fashioned Joe Schmoe elbow.”

---------

Now, the lead from a prep notebook--a "catching up with local athletes in college" type thing, published on Dec. 20, 2008, in the local paper that covers the high school that Butt****er attended:

---------

Podunk's Archie Butt****er, a senior forward with the University of Podunk men’s basketball team, was questioned about stitches under his right eye during a recent press conference in Podunk.

“Is that a Joe Schmoe (Podunk teammate) battle scar?” the reporter inquired.

Butt****er laughed.

“That is a Joe Schmoe battle scar, yes,” he replied. “Just caught a good old-fashioned Joe Schmoe elbow.”

---------


The quotes in question are from a one-on-one interview, and were only published in the student paper. So basically, the author of the second story lifted them, and mimicked the structure without crediting the source.

Is this plagiarism? Or just a **** move?

 

[RTJ]

Plagiarism. That's pretty clear cut, if it wasn't attributed to the other paper.

 

[Mark2010]

Why not just say "Butt****er told the University Daily Rag".

 

[Some Guy]

If it was a one-on-one interview, it's totally plagiarism.

If it was a group interview, it wasn't plagiarism ... but I still would have avoided it. I've covered beats where four or five paper all had access to the same press conference ... you took pains to avoid similar leads when you could.

 

[Mystery_Meat]

You say it was a 1-on-1 interview, but the first story said the question came up as the guy was ABOUT to leave the press conference. So did he say it in front of a bunch of people, or just to the one reporter out of earshot of anyone else?

 

[broadway joe]

Sounds debatable as to whether it was really a 1-on-1 interview or whether he was questioned "during a recent press conference," as the second story describes it. It was lazy of the writer to use exactly the same structure as the original story, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it plagiarism.

 

[SF_Express]

More attribution would have been nice. But I have to say, with all due respect to my beatwriting brethren, if this is plagiarism, then national notebooks that run all over the country are in the same area a lot of the time.

It should have been made clear that it was from another publication. But I'll wager the writer thought "during a recent press conference" had him covered. I truly doubt sinister, plagiaristic (a word?) intent.

 

[Ace]

Yeah, in the second story the writer did say he was questioned during a recent press conference. I think it's OK, especially if it was in notes or a transcript.

If it was just in the Daily Student Rag, then it should have been attributed to the student paper.

 

[Some Guy]

More attribution would have been nice. But I have to say, with all due respect to my beatwriting brethren, if this is plagiarism, then national notebooks that run all over the country are in the same area a lot of the time.

You can't pilfer a one-on-one interview. You can pilfer pretty much anything you want from a large presser. I agree it is uncertain, in this instance, if it was one-on-one. If it was, then this was a no-no. If it wasn't, then, yeah, this sort of stuff happens all the time, and is above board.

No matter what, I stand by my assertion that, if you're writing something that's already been written, you might look for a unique lead ... or at least unique phrasing.

It should have been made clear that it was from another publication. But I'll wager the writer thought "during a recent press conference" had him covered. I truly doubt sinister, plagiaristic (a word?) intent.
[/quote]

 

[Jersey_Guy]

Stuff like this used to be the absolute par for the newspaper course prior to the Internet. Almost everybody doing a national or local notebook stole quotes left and right with no attribution.

Now, the standard either calls for total attribution, or as close as you can get to total attribution, but that standard hasn't been accepted or acknowledged everywhere.

I once worked for an old-time SE who specifically took attribution OUT of stories I did, because he didn't like it. He wasn't evil, he was used to a different style.

It's a muddy area, but I personally consider stuff like this bad journalism and, in some cases, unethical.

 

[Ace]

Stuff like this used to be the absolute par for the newspaper course prior to the Internet. Almost everybody doing a national or local notebook stole quotes left and right with no attribution.

Now, the standard either calls for total attribution, or as close as you can get to total attribution, but that standard hasn't been accepted or acknowledged everywhere.

I once worked for an old-time SE who specifically took attribution OUT of stories I did, because he didn't like it. He wasn't evil, he was used to a different style.

It's a muddy area, but I personally consider stuff like this bad journalism and, in some cases, unethical.

The item says the he was questioned during a news conference. If it was said in front of other folks, it's correctly attributed. I have no problem.

If it was taken straight out of the student paper, that's different, but I doubt that's the case.

 

[SF_Express]

You can't pilfer a one-on-one interview. You can pilfer pretty much anything you want from a large presser. I agree it is uncertain, in this instance, if it was one-on-one. If it was, then this was a no-no. If it wasn't, then, yeah, this sort of stuff happens all the time, and is above board.

OK, this is an interesting gray area, and already briefly mentioned above.

Everybody's walking out of the press conference. Bunch of writers standing around. Question is asked, then answered when everybody is walking out.

Does this really constitute a "one-on-one" interview? It's not like they sat down together and had a conversation.

Again, I think it was underattributed. I don't think it was unethical.

Also, when I was still in print, we started doing the same things a lot of places did, I believe: "Material for this notebook was gathered from other writers and publications." Or something like that.

 

[Some Guy]

You can't pilfer a one-on-one interview. You can pilfer pretty much anything you want from a large presser. I agree it is uncertain, in this instance, if it was one-on-one. If it was, then this was a no-no. If it wasn't, then, yeah, this sort of stuff happens all the time, and is above board.

OK, this is an interesting gray area, and already briefly mentioned above.

Everybody's walking out of the press conference. Bunch of writers standing around. Question is asked, then answered when everybody is walking out.

Does this really constitute a "one-on-one" interview? It's not like they sat down together and had a conversation.

Again, I think it was underattributed. I don't think it was unethical.

Also, when I was still in print, we started doing the same things a lot of places did, I believe: "Material for this notebook was gathered from other writers and publications." Or something like that.

I suppose it is a gray area. If it was asked and answered loud enough for others to overhear in a public setting, I say it's fair game.

To me, what we're talking about is information that is delivered in public vs. info that is delivered in private, either in person or by phone or email.

If info is public, I don't think it needs to be attributed.

 

[RedCanuck]

If it was asked and answered loud enough for others to overhear in a public setting, I say it's fair game.

To me, what we're talking about is information that is delivered in public vs. info that is delivered in private, either in person or by phone or email.

Exactly, if it's loud enough to be picked by the ear without "bugging" mics, then it's fair game to use. I really don't see any issue here.

 

[Some Guy]

If it was asked and answered loud enough for others to overhear in a public setting, I say it's fair game.

To me, what we're talking about is information that is delivered in public vs. info that is delivered in private, either in person or by phone or email.

Exactly, if it's loud enough to be picked by the ear without "bugging" mics, then it's fair game to use. I really don't see any issue here.

Except, as a matter of personal choice, I wouldn't use the exact same anecdote, written in pretty much the exact same construction, of a piece that appeared elsewhere two weeks earlier.

Plenty of time to come up with another lead.

 

[SF_Express]

If it was asked and answered loud enough for others to overhear in a public setting, I say it's fair game.

To me, what we're talking about is information that is delivered in public vs. info that is delivered in private, either in person or by phone or email.

Exactly, if it's loud enough to be picked by the ear without "bugging" mics, then it's fair game to use. I really don't see any issue here.

Except, as a matter of personal choice, I wouldn't use the exact same anecdote, written in pretty much the exact same construction, of a piece that appeared elsewhere two weeks earlier.

Plenty of time to come up with another lead.

As a professional pride thing, I can certainly understand that.

 

[tagline]

I always dislike the use of "a reporter" when you're actually writing about yourself. That third-person approach can make a one-on-one scene seem like at least three people were involved.

 

[Mystery_Meat]

What if the writer from the second story WAS "a reporter" from the first one?

The only questionable elements from the second story were "Butt****er laughed" as a separate graf and the use of "he replied" in the money quote. Picayune, perhaps, but it could circumstantially point to a cut-and-paste job. And it's not that hard to reconstruct, anyways:

Podunk High grad Archie Butt****er, a senior forward at Podunk University, laughed when asked near the end of a recent press conference whether stiches under his right eye came from a practice encounter with Joe Schmoe.

"Just caught a good old-fashioned Joe Schmoe elbow," Butt****er said."

Something like that. Only, y'know, GOOD.

Or you could exise it completely. It's not that interesting an anecdote.

However, an expose on just how the Butt****ers managed to create a child might be called for ...

 

[RedCanuck]

Except, as a matter of personal choice, I wouldn't use the exact same anecdote, written in pretty much the exact same construction, of a piece that appeared elsewhere two weeks earlier.

I didn't read that part, that does appear pretty bad in the timing and construction of the second piece — though there's a remote chance of coincidence since the writing is basically in chronological order. On the subject of exclusive/not exclusive though, I had no problem with its use.

 

[pseudo]

The question I haven't seen asked yet: Was the reporter from the second story AT that "media gathering"? If he was, fine, although the construction still looks suspicious. If he wasn't, damn straight he lifted it from the student paper.

Still doesn't rise to the level of, say, cutting and pasting someone's blog entry to your sports front. (No, the original story isn't mine, although the paper in question did the same thing to me in January. In both cases, entire passages, not just quotes from a one-on-one, were reprinted without attribution.)