I'm curious, as I know most of you are news readers, and makers

Do you care WHERE your news came from when you read it? Like if I post a news story that's just a copy/paste from another news source, does it matter to Joe Reader?

There was a time when litigation ensued if something like that happened, but obviously that's out the window these days. So I'm torn between old standards, and new complacency....Because I gotta tell ya, it's a lot easier to just copy and paste......

If you could better describe the nature of the bee in your bonnet, I could better answer your question.

Yes, I care about the source of the news. A journalist should do a reasonable degree of due diligence to verify the facts before reporting.

But GHT isn't a news source, nor are we journalists.

A modicum of investigation is always appreciated. Less is expected when you are running a two or three sentence radio headline than when you are publishing a 500 or 1000 word print article.

Unfortunately, investigation, corroboration, and verification of factual assertions made by persons quoted, all seem to be non-existent these days. 'So-and-so said this...' is gossip, nothing more.

I guess it's more of a broad sourcing, I don't ever say "TDW reports..." in a news story... I don't do this because I don't ever read it, and I don't use it as a news source.

But If I read a Seattle Times article about a local business and, rather than contact that local business and write my own article, I just read it, summarized it, then reported it and said "the seattle times reports..." would you care?

I'm beginning to wonder if FOX News has made it's mark on news readers, and if no one truly cares anymore.



I will never be a journalist, not because I cannot, but because there's not much future in it when Joe Reader doesn't care if I wrote my article, or if the local newspaper wrote it.

Also what's a GHT?

This message board: GraysHarborTalk

Btw, most of time your brief ad lib comments during your reporting are pretty humorous.




I think you should strive for excellence in whatever moral and legal enterprise you undertake. I'd rather know that you have taken the time and effort to contact the local business and some of those it impacts, and have written your own article, accurately. If I want a Seattle take on it, I'll read the Seattle Times or listen to their reporting.

Ohh hahaha ok, I thought it was a reference to the Grays Harbor Transit story I was running and it confused me. I always take the so-and-so-said stuff to the source, even those sources that don't want to talk to media.

Also thank you, I do try to strive for excellence when I can tell what that goal is. It seems like budgeting, downsizing, and "the economy" are contributing to a watered-down-norm. I came into the "news game" pretty late so I really wasn't sure which is better.

I just know if I worked in computers again and someone told me not to bother fixing something because you could just jiggle the handle, I'd wonder which is the more promising career path; fixing things, or jiggling the handle.

Yes, I think that many people are just really, really exhausted in general, which has led to apathy/dumbing down, a watered down norm...whatever you want to label it.

Most of reported news is not that great or uplifting...I think people just skim it because it's the same old, same old...and out of habit, not for information that they can really utilize.

Unless you read something like Entreprenuer Magazine and certain Christian publications, most people believe the whole world is about to collapse into a black hole.



Find your passion and pursue it.
News reporting doesn't seem to be yours.
Life's short.
Don't spend it just going through the motions.
You'll regret it.

I see your point, I enjoy news and having a passion for employment is what I can afford at the moment. Putting a wife through college and three kids through school is not conducive to exploration at my age.

Yes, if I see something interesting, I usually read it, and then if I am still interested, try to find a different source and see if it says basically the same story. If it doesn't, keep looking. It is amazing how many times the reported "news" is wrong.

If I want to share something here, it is copy and paste, with a link, unless I know something beyond the reported story.

Gotcha! Best wishes!

It has made its mark on me. I avoid anything with those three letters on it.
Summarizing someone else's article is the easy way. You'd get a better story by talking to the subject and asking what the story got wrong, and what was left out.

Previously reported news is still news. But, if your source is wrong and you report it, you're still wrong and are fully entitled to the consequences of being wrong. With that said, sourced material should be verified and cited. A good reporter can/should add to the story somehow.

I think "The Seattle Times reports" is appropriate, because generally it's impractical for you to independently verify the events described in the Seattle Times, CNN or NPR.

With local news, I don't think it's unreasonable for you to call sources to verify local stories. Also, "TDW reports" is better than "Lumberjack said on his facebook page" but both are preferable to simply no attribution at all.

The latter happens all too often even in network/syndicated coverage.

It does sound like the shift has happened here as well, maybe I should just cave and not worry about it.

There was a time when I wouldn't report on a story I heard on a competing radio station UNTIL I had interviewed the source and had my own story.
It seems now days stations actually use something they heard on another station as their "source" then just don't attribute when they "report."

To me that's a slippery slope towards your news sources just being the people who yell loudest, quickest.

Definitely attribute.
Discerning listeners will appreciate it.
It's kind of like having the luxury of a local "personal news shopper".

Best thing I ever heard said about this was William Woo, former editor of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who said "there's only one kind of ethics in the world, and we shouldn't pretend we can adopt another sort of ethics just because we have a particular job."

You have kids. Do you want their prime role model to be an honorable man who fights the good fight and does the best he can, or someone who cuts corners and doesn't do his own homework?

Yeah, I know, maybe your kids aren't even that aware of what you do.

But YOU are.

The WORST thing, that I hear all the time on TV is "some say". By "some" I mean "me", of course.

I feel ya Beavis, and yes I still prefer to do it the right way, over the easy way. It just gets frustrating when I see it working done the easy way.

You'd be amazed at how the standards at the paper have slacked on this even. When I started I was warned sternly NOT to ever read a story out of the paper because Hughes would literally threaten lawsuit. Now I hear it at least once a day... (mind you I said hear, not say)

I think that it's OK in the case of national and state-wide issues as long as you cite the source.

For local stories, I would prefer that you do your own research and not just regurgitate news from the paper or other local stations.

So it's okay now to steal copyrighted material that other businesses created at their own expense, often great aggregate expense, and pass it off as your own original content?

I didn't know that. Do I care? Yeah, I think it sucks. Why go to the expense of creating quality content when you can just steal it from other people? That erodes (has eroded) all the media and before long it's a race to the bottom. Sad.

But even worse is the business model of getting people to produce content for free that is utter crap thereby eroding any semblance of craft or professionalism, combine it with the model above, and then sell the business for hundreds of millions.

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.