After consulting with “several” lawyers, Parlato told CJR that the photos, which he found “on the Internet,” constitute “fair use,” pointing out that sites such as Yahoo and Romenesko have used photos of Parlato that were “lifted” from his site (it should be noted that Yahoo credited the photo). “It seems strange to hold struggling print media to a higher standard than Yahoo,” Parlato says. “Maybe us print people have to, to some extent, take the gloves off and compete toe-to-toe with the Internet.” (Incidentally, several prominent sites have been sued for copyright infringement over the years for posting copyrighted photos: Buzzfeed, PerezHilton, and BleacherReport, to name a few. Just because a lot of websites use photos without paying the copyright holder for them or crediting the source doesn’t mean it’s not legally actionable.)
And Parlato continues to “lift” photos off the Internet, even using the fact that a picture was created by someone else as a defense in the Reporter’s current editorial, in response to accusations that the paper was making fun of children with Down syndrome in a photo published as “humor.”
“The Niagara Falls Reporter published a picture last week that was originally posted on an internet site,” Parlato wrote. “It was a mock KFC ad for their ‘Double Down’ sandwich. We did not create the image.”
But there is some good news: Parlato says he’s doubled the size of his paper since taking over in April, and it’s doing so well that he’s looking to hire three full-time investigative reporters. “Guys — or girls — with real intrepidity,” Parlato says. The additions will be welcome; the Reporter is at its best when it’s trying to do real investigative work. Before Parlato’s time, the Reporter was given a positive mention in the Darts & Laurels section of CJR’s January/February 2007 issue for its role in uncovering some shady ethics between Niagara Falls and the Reporter’s rival paper, Niagara Gazette.
If Fox News has taught us anything, there certainly is a place in journalism today for news presented from a specific point of view. People will watch it and read it; advertisers will pay for it. If Parlato’s brand of journalism is what his public wants, more power to him and his newspaper. It would be nice, though, if Parlato focused less on “publishing that which promotes traditional family values” and more on publishing that which promotes good journalistic ethics.
I find this article incomplete. Under the previous owner/editor, the Niagara Falls Reporter was a popular gadfly that was even named the "official newspaper of the city of Niagara Falls." It was also popular in Buffalo. Parlato fudges facts about the internet. The paper had a big internet presence that Parlato inherited. All those Niagara residents who moved away for jobs, you know.
Why isn't Michael Calleri interviewed? It's his story that rocketed around the world. The author makes it sound as if he should be happy with she seems to crassly consider fame. She's treating him the same way Parlato did. How many writers did Parlato remove? I gather all of them. What about the readers who cared about the old Reporter and its style and writing? It even had Pulitzer Prize-winners contributing free-lance, friends of the former editor.
Ms. Morrison lets Parlato off the hook regarding his journalistic practices. She doesn't probe deep enough and seems to be saying: behave yourself and you might have a good newspaper. Has she actually read the Parlato-era Reporter, a sloppy compendium of grammar and spelling errors, not to mention loopy writing and weird thematic leaps. I expected more and better from the CJR.
#1 Posted by Dan Cooper, CJR on Wed 5 Dec 2012 at 08:23 PM
Sara Morrison should have researched this story a little better. Frank Parlato is not the kind of person we want buying weekly newspapers. Isn't the sad recent history of weekies in the United States lesson enough? Consider the demise of the poor Village Voice and others across the country. Morrison tries to hang Parlato with charges of lifting material, but her last couple of paragraphs erroneously offers salvation to Parlato. The real story is that a journalist, a movie critic, faced with draconian rules for covering his beat, took a courageous stand that Morrison sniffs at. I am very disappointed at how she blithely glosses over this factor. That's the real story. Where's the praise for a journalist with a backbone? Here's an article about the Niagara Falls Reporter from Buffalo's alternative weekly, Artvoice, that was published after Michael Calleri's column appeared on Ebert's website. Calleri's column is one of the truest and most honest stories we've seen about the current state of journalism in a long time. He should have been the focus of Morrison's take on the situation. Calleri's story is eye-opening. The Artvoice piece is hair-raising. http://blogs.artvoice.com/avdaily/2012/11/19/niagara-falls-reporter-and-gynophobia/
#2 Posted by Charlotte Wiedeman, CJR on Wed 5 Dec 2012 at 11:39 PM
Agreed. Sara Morrison misses the story. By a mile. The story isn't about the publisher. It's about the movie reviewer. When was the last time we saw the kind of journalistic integrity that was displayed by the critic? And then he had the guts to go public with his story, putting him right in the middle of contemporary issues about the treatment of women and the future of brave personal journalism. Why does Ms. Morrison think we care at all about the haphazard, fly-by-night publisher? We need more writers like Michael Calleri, not more publishers as depicted. Did Ms. Morrison see Parlato as an easy target? Sort of tabloidy on the part of the CJR if you ask me.
Women's issues and movie-making are interesting and well worth covering, but this is, above all, a story about the state of contemporary journalism. And the focus of Ms. Morrison's article needed to be on the individual journalist who is the reason we care about the story and all of the issues involved. Her dismissal of the critic's role is unfair, unkind, unjust, and questionable from a journalistic standpoint.
#3 Posted by William Brodner, CJR on Thu 6 Dec 2012 at 12:59 AM
Good points, all, but that individual journalist was (as Sara notes in her piece) well-covered elsewhere. If he had been the sole focus, the story wouldn't offer any new information.
#4 Posted by Kira Goldenberg, CJR on Thu 6 Dec 2012 at 07:58 AM
Perhaps Kira, but Morrison sloughs off the critic's accomplishments. He wouldn't have to be the sole focus of the story. That makes no sense. Right now, he isn't even a minor part of the story. I'd argue that the strange, amateur publisher is the sole focus of the article here, and wrongly so. Morrison is definitely emphasizing the wrong side of the controversy. Without writers, critics, and reporters, publishers would have nothing in their newspapers. Where's the critic's voice? Where's Roger Ebert's? Why did Ebert choose to run it? And the ending of Morrison's article is sort of an escape hatch for the publisher. I am disappointed in this. If this is the CJR's take on the entire situation, it's not a good one.
#5 Posted by Marvin Holter, CJR on Thu 6 Dec 2012 at 08:45 AM
Although it seems to question the publisher's practices, this article ends up being much too pro-publisher with that weird out for him at the close of the column. Why was it decided to focus on the publisher? He is not a good person, nor is he a professional. I agree, where are Roger Ebert and Michael Calleri? Here are two true journalists, and they barely get mentioned. Where's the discussion of the women's aspect and/or the movie aspect? The CJR needs to do better on this entire story. There are a lot of journalism issues that are being ignored. Publisher's demands versus writer's freedoms. The takeover of a newspaper by someone with no experience. Censorship. What about the readers and their comfort level with the newspaper under the original owner/editor? Would movie studios want to advertise in this newspaper now? Common sense versus business sense. I find this CJR column a bit lazy. More research was needed. This is an international story that shines a light on contemporary journalism. The CJR should have gone bigger and bolder.
#6 Posted by Jean Spillman, CJR on Thu 6 Dec 2012 at 09:12 AM
Hunh? The critic has been covered "elsewhere." What? That excuses this weak reaction to what Morrison calls an "international" story. Do you know something, I don't read "elsewhere," I read the Columbia Journalism Review. It should have done a better job reporting on this entire episode. There are so many journalism issues at play here that it's staggering.
#7 Posted by Thom Mishra, CJR on Thu 6 Dec 2012 at 09:25 AM