Dateline: In the Shire, Indiana, 2 August 2005
This piece by self-annointed media ombudsman Howard Kurtz, who I believe has a CNN show as well that covers the media, appeared in yesterday's Washington Post. Below are the excerpts relevant to my piece. You can find the full piece at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/31/AR2005073101051.html.
I have learned my lesson: media people are even touchier than academics! Beyond that, Mark Warren speaks for Esquire and I add nothing to his effective reply. I thought Kurtz kept it all very reasonable and fair.
What Did They Say, and To Whom Did They Say It?
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 1, 2005; Page C01
Journalists are expending plenty of time and energy these days accusing other journalists of the sin of ripping them off.
They got there first and deserve proper credit, the complainants say, rather than having their hard work lifted without recognition.
These are not the cases of blatant plagiarism that have cost a number of reporters and commentators their jobs. And most readers probably don't care. But in a business that measures scoops by seconds, journalists feel very proprietary about their exclusives -- and aren't shy about crying foul.
Take the case of the Deep Throat memo . . .
Esquire's July issue featured a long, carefully reported profile of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld by Thomas Barnett. The piece included a quote from Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold on Rumsfeld's style, saying, "If the environment's intimidating and suppressive, if it demeans, people tend to clam up."
ABC News producer Howard Rosenberg wrote to the magazine, saying he was "disappointed and surprised" to read Newbold's comments, which had been made to network correspondent John McWethy. "Newbold did not tell Barnett anything since, according to the general, he has never been interviewed by him," Rosenberg wrote.
Esquire Executive Editor Mark Warren calls the question of credit "a judgment call" and says of Newbold's remarks: "It was clear from the context of the piece that Barnett did not represent it as his own reporting. It was a very deeply reported piece and this was a small part. I don't regard it as an egregious error at all but more as a professional courtesy."
In February, Bloomberg News reporter Tony Capaccio wrote . . .
Where should the line be drawn? Major news outlets are actually better about this than they were 20 years ago, when they would grudgingly refer to "published reports" if they gave credit at all. But making a couple of calls to confirm a story that a journalist would not otherwise know about doesn't excuse the obligation to give proper credit. Plus, it's the decent thing to do. And it would mean a lot fewer complaints for this column.
Beyond this minor hubbub, it does feel weird to be written about as a journalist in a column about the media. Still, for an amazingly long piece (almost 8k) with a ton of reporting, I am happy to report that is the only complaint of note regarding my effort (other than the general and often incomprehensibly written "you suck!" letters one always receives). And I say that as someone who's been profiled or quoted (both with attribution and without) in numerous venues.
Still, lesson learned without rancor. Kurtz kept it reasonable. Warren did as well. Rosenberg struck me as rather overdone, but I guess TV people instinctively play it over the top, assuming there's a camera somewhere capturing it all.
| Permalink |
