Aggregation online is both legitimate, acceptable and a practice that’s been embraced globally. Our mistake was attempting to carry it into print and we have stopped that.
But there’s no difference in principle. if one paper collects the facts, does another paper have the right to use them, even with attribution? Even if you don’t agree with my answer—no—better to address the issue squarely.
For his part, the JI’s Powell says if the Courant keeps it up, the paper will consider legal action.
I don’t know how the legal issues will come down, but here are a few observations:
First, disciplining employees for poorly executing a bad policy is preposterous. It is also revealing.
Put it this way, does anyone think individual reporters have anything to gain from “plagiarizing” a three-paragraph story about some obscure event in some tiny town? (UPDATE: See correction below.)
Second, if you going to apologize for something, it is important to be forthright and properly characterize the problem. This is the first rule of corrections. The real issue—certainly, in the JI’s view—is not about attribution, aka, plagiarism. It is about taking the information at all. If the Courant believes it has the right to do this, it should say so.
Third, readers should be on the lookout for the misuse of new media terms—e.g. aggregation—to accomplish retrograde ends, like taking others’ work or laying off older journalists.
Fourth, news executives waving the flag of “strict journalistic ethics” and “sacred” credibility should remember that these values don’t come cheap.
CORRECTION: An earlier version mistakenly referred to a specific news brief, about a school appointment, that was in fact not plagiarized. I regret the error. Talk about follies!
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