Comments on: Holding aggregators to journalistic standards

By: jonesgw2003

jonesgw2003 — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:40:25 +0000

I think reasonable minds can disagree as to whether Romenesko’s methods crossed the line. But what is most mystifying to me is that Moos was shocked, shocked to find this going on in her backyard. Either she is guilty of lax supervison of her underlings (“should have known”) or she did know and was panicked by the impending revelations from the Columbia person. It’s all rather like Reagan on Iran-Contra, she’s damned in both instances. Worse, though, is her pathetic attempt to replace Romenesko with her own plodding pontifications. Seems to me we have a case of: if you can’t hack it in journalism, you go into teaching it.

By: Danny_Black

Danny_Black — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 04:36:25 +0000

but weirdly lying and being factually incorrect is not a big deal?

also if cutting and pasting is “unethical” shouldnt jesse essinger give his pulitzer back?

By: Curmudgeon

Curmudgeon — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:21:36 +0000

This kind of conflict occurs whenever technology change causes a shift in the accepted norms. Someone tries to put a stake in the ground, but that stake is obsolete before it’s even cold. I don’t know where it will end up; perhaps Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart had it exactly right when he said “I know it when I see it.”

@tinbox, yes, we’re making up the rules as we go along, because there’s no broad agreement on what the rules should be. Some veterans will be offended by the mess, but the world is not going to stop evolving because they’re offended.

By: tinbox

tinbox — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:43:20 +0000

So everyone gets to make up their own rules? Or just popular people? How is this going to work?

As usual, Felix, you kowtow to the popular and powerful. Hey, I guess it works career-wise.

What an embarrassment to Reuters.

By: whet_moser

whet_moser — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:24:48 +0000

I think Romenesko was violating the letter of the law but not the spirit, which is always a tricky situation: regular Romenesko readers understood what he was doing–so the credit was inherent–but it’s not a great practice for people who aren’t him.

So it’s a matter of who the rules apply to, again, a difficult question.

Someone made the point that Romenesko mixes quotes with language taken directly from the source. Which, technically speaking, is confusing and not what people in the business are trained to do and expect.

Again, this has to be balanced with the expectations of Romenesko’s audience. Is it okay for him to have a somewhat different set of rules? Probably, people who are really good at what they do often earn the right to that.

But I’m a bit disappointed that no one really addressed Moos’s argument on the merits, except for Eric Deggans; most people just piled on Moos because they respect Romenesko more than her. I think it got pretty ugly (and Gawker really misrepresented her).

OTOH: pre-editing seemed like an over-reaction. As someone who doesn’t like being pre-edited, mostly for workflow reasons, I can see where that would be a more serious problem (and it kind of got lost in the “plagiarism” nonsense).

By: TimKGray

TimKGray — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:21:40 +0000

I dunno, Felix, how hard is to put quote marks around something? Given what Poynter does and stands for, it can’t be blithe about giving journalists, old media or new, credit for their work. One may think that Poynter is a vestige of another era and Moos a scold, but giving credit where credit’s due hardly seems a radical or burdensome notion.

By: klhoughton

klhoughton — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:43:34 +0000

Yes, but she’ll keep her job, be feted by Poynter, all while f*ck*ng their brand.

The wrath of the Twittersphere–and journalists of US and UK heritage–is cute, but rather ineffective.

By: GlennFleishman

GlennFleishman — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 06:57:23 +0000

I also question two elements of Moos’ tendentious piece.

First, if the rules were set in 2004 and they were meant to apply universally, how did it take until seven years later to have someone consider whether they should examine Jim’s writing and see if they were within the rules?

Second, this bit: “His editors read behind him after he publishes, and often read the original source material, but none of us have noticed the duplicative language.” That is utter horse puckey. Anyone who actually has read Romenesko would notice from the first one or two items that the “source” material (more accurately, the “destination” material) is the place from which Jim excerpts for his blurbs.

There was no subterfuge. Moos clearly never read Jim’s work in the way the rest of us did.

By: Sprizouse

Sprizouse — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 04:59:56 +0000

I love angry Felix! Best kind of Felix there is.