That's not what she said.

Newspapers have done this "according to the xxx newspaper/magazine" since time immemorial; it's the whole point of syndication.

But I am disappointed that all kinds of media do so little local content. Back in the day, local TV produced lots of good television and reporting.

There's nothing unethical about reporting about others reporting, provided it's attributed and accurate and provided it isn't a substitute for local reporting.

Perhaps I have misunderstood this conversation but this seemed to be referencing "cut and paste" journalism which is not merely a reference or summation as you infer but directly reprinting or reading verbatim a copyrighted news story, or portion of a news story, from another publication. This is not, and never has been, a widely accepted practice or at least a method of work that is perceived as ethical as I understand it, attribution or not, and may in fact be a violation of copyright law.

That being said, most newspaper newsrooms will generally mumble under their breath about radio news essentially ripping off their content on a regular basis - true or not.

Syndication is something else entirely. It is a system that involves actual payment or sharing under contractual licensing agreements. Then there is the Associated Press, which is a member driven cooperative where members both generate and use content. I would imagine that in the Grays Harbor market, a majority of local news stories do not get put on the AP wire. But if it's an AP story, and you pay for the AP service, then that's fair game because there is an agreement in place (and money changed hands).

But given this statement ...



... we do not appear to be talking about syndicated content in any form. And since this once generated litigation, and as far as I know copyright law has not changed, then this is still a discussion concerning unlawful use of copyrighted material. I have no idea why litigation would be "out the window these days." And why "obviously." If anything, it's ramping up as news and other intellectual property producers fight to maintain their rights on the fractured field.



Again, to my knowledge applicable copyright law has not changed. A "Dear Infringer" letter from a corporate attorney in Vegas has made the rounds on the harbor before, I'm not sure why it would not now. And by the way, Stephens Media (which owns the Daily World) has been one of the most aggressive media companies to pursue infringement. This backfired quite a bit with Righthaven but still, really not something any news outlet should start poking with a stick.

It is possible I misunderstood the original and subsequent posts. I really do appreciate that DeadDave appears to be doing the right thing, and trying to maintain standards in a landscape that is apparently falling apart. But it does concern me that there is a perception, and apparent misunderstanding, that strong journalistic ethics have somehow changed, or that laws have changed. If common practices have changed substantially in recent years that's no reason to race to the bottom along with (almost) everyone else.

I completely agree with how it "should be" but it's just not that way anymore.
And yes, syndication is it's own entity where an agreement exists. The Associated Press is a service we (news outlets) all subscribe to in some form or another, once a story hits the AP, anyone can broadcast it - that's the syndication. But I cannot go to the Seattle Times' website and just rip off a story (technically).... Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be the repercussions in place that used to be, and yes; as far as I know copyright law hasn't changed in a while.

Also thank you guys for your opinions on the matter. I know I'm talking to a smart, and well established group of Harborites when I ask a question here.

(I even spellcheck...to post to a FORUM....)

Well I appreciate hearing how it really is now, and I'm sorry to hear that. It just further erodes the entire system when it starts cannibalizing itself which of course means even fewer resources available to news outlets, less money for reporters, and especially less capital to pursue any type of investigative journalism (and I would argue all good journalism is at least in part investigative journalism). Without good watchdogs keeping power elites in check, without real independent enterprise journalism, where are things heading?

Given who the managing editor is over there (at Le Hurl), I'm not surprised at all; and I certainly think if they steal a story you've broken without giving you any attribution at all you should be pissed...and that goes for your opposite number at KXRO, as well. When I was there, the only time I listened to KBKW was on the rare occasions when I wanted to hear Boss Bill's reaction to a story I had done, such as the infamous Rhys Davis Booby Page incident.

Also, I think if it's a big enough story, there ought to be plenty to go around, if you know what I mean, and to some degree there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Pull your own sources, sure, but if all those sources are doing is confirming what you already heard or read from another outlet, I don't see a problem--I wouldn't read the other news outlet's story verbatim, but following the form and structure in your own story isn't out of the question.

It's 99 percent boredom and frustration, but once in a great while, done right, it's the sport of kings.

"Racks by Rhys!" How could we forget? I figured it would come down quickly and did a quick "Print Page" for the whole thing. I had them all for a while, but the pics were of, well, I don't know how else to say it, a bunch of skanks, if you ask me. I think I threw them away a few months later. What a blast from the past.

This guy tried to capitalize for a while after Wolfenbarger had Rhys take it down.

Huh, I guess these things resolve themselves sometimes.