On the subject of newspapers chewing their own legs off, the Hartford Courant, is in the process of doing just that these days, first having stumbled into a plagiarism scandal, now by issuing opaque statements while disciplining employees for poorly executing a policy that was bad to begin with.
Connecticut news circles have been in a tizzy the last couple weeks after the Journal Inquirer, the Courant’s archrival, published accusations that the Tribune Company’s Hartford outlet was lifting local coverage of the JI and other Connecticut papers without their permission.
The Courant first blamed the problem on bugs in a new “aggregation policy.”
Then, late last week, Richard Graziano, the Courant’s publisher and chief executive, issued a letter to readers saying that an “extensive internal review” had found the paper had indeed plagiarized competitors’ local news.
This was not our intent, but it is in fact what happened. We are taking corrective action to prevent it from happening again. We have also disciplined the individuals involved.
The issue here isn’t that some staffers committed plagiarism by failing to attribute information to competitors. The real problem is that, after cutting the paper’s news staff in half and pulling out of local news coverage, Courant managers decided as a matter of policy to rewrite the copy of the paper’s competitors—for free, with credit to the originator but without their permission—and print it in the Courant and on its Web site as a substitute for doing the work itself.
The Courant simply rewrote all salient facts in these (short) stories, treating competitors as though they were some kind of free Associated Press. The fact that some staffers may have left off the “Journal Inquirer reported” makes it worse, but the issue is taking something that’s not yours in the first place. This is the issue the Courant chooses not to address.
Local and regional newspapers are in a financial crisis—this we know. But while many aspects of the crisis are not in news executives’ control, how they respond to it is.
Do they soldier on, providing the best possible report given shrinking resources, adapting to new media as best they can, while upholding time-honored standards of journalism quality and integrity? Or, do they resort to shortcuts and gimmicks papered over by corporate humbug?
We’re all for innovation here at CJR. We give newspapers the benefit of the doubt as they careen around in search of answers, bringing in radio and TV executives, experimenting with blogs, video, social media, what have you. And we’re under no illusions that newspapers were so great before the current financial storm hit in earnest a couple years ago.
But if in these turbulent times, news organizations go the gimmick route and lose faith in journalism itself—courageous reporting, great writing—they’re not going to make it and they won’t deserve to.
Last week, we read that Gannett Co.’s Westchester franchise forced journalists and advertising employees to “reapply” for jobs they already held in a cost-saving/productivity move couched as an attempt to embrace the digital age. I don’t know what will eventually work, but I suspect that humiliating your staff is not the way to go.
The Courant and its parent, Sam Zell’s bankrupt Tribune Co., have been making their own choices. In the spring, TribCo merged its Hartford TV and print operations, installing TV executives to run the American’s oldest continuously published newspaper. That’s not necessarily a bad choice, but it certainly is a choice. Then last month, Courant forced out a consumer columnist who now loudly accuses the paper of kowtowing to advertisers. That’s another one.
Now comes Aggra-gate.
It started, back in July when an internal memo, leaked to Web site of ex Courant staffers, announced staff changes that included a new position:
Aggregation Editor: TBD (this person aggregates/collects/rewrites content from around the state, acting almost as an AP bureau for the Courant to broaden the news we offer readers online and in print).
Last Thursday when Rich Graziano, publisher of the Courant, met with an outraged Hartford Courant newsroom, he reassured the newsroom staff: “Only journalists are concerned about this, readers don’t think it matters.”
#1 Posted by Courant Staffer, CJR on Tue 8 Sep 2009 at 10:42 PM
I'm a reader and I think it matters!
#2 Posted by Martha Healy, CJR on Wed 9 Sep 2009 at 09:06 PM
The Courant screwed up bigtime, no question about it, and it's sickening and sad to the people who work there. It's worth noting, however, that the Journal Inquirer has for years cribbed Courant stories for its print editions. And the rip-and-read is practically standard procedure at the local TV stations.
#3 Posted by Also a Courant Staffer, CJR on Fri 11 Sep 2009 at 12:50 PM
When I first started in radio-TV 50 years ago, it was standard operating procedure to get the final edition of the local newspaper and write "Today in Review" a summary of all the stories in the paper and mention the paper's name as the source. Then we got so competitive, that when the paper ran a story about the new microwave towers and what it meant to get national network TV programming live at last, the photograph of the ceremony was cropped so that the only trace of the TV station manager was his hand holding a celebratory drink.
Later, when I wrote a story about a wildcat strike at the city's largest employer, and largest TV advertiser, as a stringer for a national newspaper (couldn't write it for TV) and it wound up on the news wire, the local newspaper ran the story without any byline (mine or the wire service) and the union leader raised holy hell with the paper.
Of course, the double bonus for me was that the largest employer interviewed me for a PR job and the local paper offered me a job writing for them. There is nothing new under the sun, Horatio!
#4 Posted by Old Timer On Both Sides, CJR on Fri 11 Sep 2009 at 03:23 PM
"It's worth noting, however, that the Journal Inquirer has for years cribbed Courant stories for its print editions."
I've worked for both newspapers, and while it may have been practice to follow a breaking story by making a few calls and doing your own reporting, it was NEVER ok at EITHER workplace to outright lift copy. The comment that the JI has cribbed Courant stories for years makes me wonder what the few staffers left at HC really think these days. Are they participating in deflection because they've been brainwashed by the television signal down the hall???
#5 Posted by Former JI & Courant Staffer, CJR on Fri 11 Sep 2009 at 04:49 PM
From the story: "Does anyone think individual reporters have anything to gain from 'plagiarizing' a three-paragraph story about an interim assistant principal being named to the Irving A. Robbins Middle School in Farmington?" I'm not sure where this specific example was taken from -- however, as someone who received a press release about this minor school appointment and likely wrote about it, I sure as hell did not plagiarize. That is laughable. The problem originated with ONE staffer -- the so-called aggregator -- and while this episode is traumatic and embarrassing for the paper, it is not indicative of a widespread problem among the many true reporters still left at the Courant. Get it right.
#6 Posted by Yet another Courant staffer, CJR on Fri 11 Sep 2009 at 05:45 PM
Yet another Courant staffer: You're entirely right. See the correction above.
#7 Posted by Dean Starkman, CJR on Fri 11 Sep 2009 at 06:47 PM
The quibbling over how many people were responsible for the mis-aggregating, and how much attribution is enough, is just a legalistic effort to minimize what the Courant has done ... which is, plain and simple, plagiarism.
Has the JI plagiarized the Courant in the past? Maybe, but that's not a permission slip to do it now.
The Courant needs to come clean about this ... more than it has so far. It also needs to reverse course and stop gutting their operation. If it refuses to do so, it may as well just close up, because at this point, nothing the Courant reports can be trusted.
#8 Posted by Erstwhile Courant Reader, CJR on Sat 12 Sep 2009 at 11:21 PM
The comment posted by Courant Staffer on 9/08/09 is wrong. Graziano didn't say the quote below, it was Jeff Levine who said "readers don't think it matters."
"Last Thursday when Rich Graziano, publisher of the Courant, met with an outraged Hartford Courant newsroom, he reassured the newsroom staff: “Only journalists are concerned about this, readers don’t think it matters.”"
#9 Posted by Back Stabber, CJR on Mon 14 Sep 2009 at 01:31 PM
Yet another Courant Staffer says that the problem originated with ONE staffer -- the so-called aggregator.
If that's the case, why were six people disciplined???
The problem isn't with that single reporter, who was entry level at best and only doing what he was told. The problem is systemic in the Courant's management who believe this practice is appropriate newsgathering.
#10 Posted by Former Courant reader, CJR on Mon 14 Sep 2009 at 03:58 PM
Former Courant reader, I think it goes without saying that management is the biggest problem in this situation. However, what I assume bothers many journalists at the Courant is this assumption (due to the vagueness of the newspaper management's apology) that many bylines were tainted in this scandal. In fact, it was one byline where the plagiarism stemmed. But the others disciplined, including Jeff Levine, were editors who needed to 'pay' for this major screw-up.
#11 Posted by 285 Broad, CJR on Tue 22 Sep 2009 at 10:07 AM