The 11 December issue was reruns from 1995 since I was down with the flu. One of those stories was this one (which dealt with trying to embarrass journalists into better writing so there aren’t so many errors in the paper). It was only the second “rerun column” ever in 11-1/2 years of weekly True issues.
Well Guess What? That made it really easy to discover that there are newspapers out there that don’t buy True as a feature column (yes, I did sell it to newspapers as a column), but use items from it anyway! That’s absolutely theft. They stole something I sell to make a living.
One of the culprits was the Toronto Star, who even used my tagline as if it was their words. I probably would have caught them, but someone else did first: Regret the Error, an entertaining newspaper blog.
RtE’s editor wrote me on New Year’s Day to ask if I was aware of the plagiarism, and would I comment on it? I was not, and did.
Their resulting report is [no longer online]. Then, today, the newspaper industry bible, Editor & Publisher, ran with the story too (foolishly, also no longer online. Why do so many publications just throw away great content?!)
It’s not the only recent newspaper blunder of taking stuff from the Internet: the Los Angeles Times recently ran a front page(!) story that a reporter sourced from the Internet; it turned out to be a hoax.
This is Why Newspapers are Failing
It’s astounding to me that in this era of instant communications that newspapers ever attempt plagiarism or lazy sourcing practices, and then think they can get away with it. That newspapers don’t understand that the Public Trust is involved here, and their continued violation of that trust is the reason fewer and fewer people are reading newspapers anymore.
This stuff matters! Newspapers are supposed to be the defenders of high professional standards, not the leader in savaging them.
I am extremely careful to state where I get the facts I use to write my stories, even though that’s not required by copyright law. I’m very careful to use only the facts, not the “flavor” of how they’re put together, only partly because that is required by copyright law. This isn’t rocket science (and, as a guy who worked for 10 years at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, I know rocket science when I see it).
If a guy working out of a spare bedroom at home understands this, why don’t supposedly professional newspaper editors and publishers get it? As I told Regret the Error, as a journalism school graduate and a member of the Society of Professional Journalists, “it’s not fun to watch newspapers take yet another step into the depths right before my eyes.”
Hiding in the Shadows
Within days, the Star removed the story from their web site and issued a half-hearted correction. RtE followed up [no longer online], and editorialized, “Rather than explain how the writer came to select the item and then fail to verify it, the Star merely mentions that it was a decade old and ‘re-posted’ on Cassingham’s site. It does not apologize to Cassingham. It does not explain that what was done is against Star policy and why. It does not detail any disciplinary action, or why none was taken. Let’s be clear: We’re not exactly calling for heads to roll, but the Star has to meet a higher standard of disclosure. Perhaps these issues will be addressed in a column from the Public Editor. But, for now, this inadequate correction is almost worse than no correction at all.”
Sadly, the newspapers involved counted on something: that if they just deleted and hid, it would blow over. And indeed it did. Next time, I’m turning the case over to my attorney for action.
Update: The case made Regret the Error’s 2006 “Crunks List” (worst gaffes of the year), in the “Best Abuse of Archives” section. Again, sadly, no longer online.
- - -
This page is an example of Randy Cassingham’s style of “Thought-Provoking Entertainment”. His This is True is an email newsletter that uses “weird news” as a vehicle to explore the human condition in an entertaining way. If that sounds good, click here to open a subscribe form.
To really support This is True, you’re invited to sign up for a subscription to the much-expanded “Premium” edition:
Q: Why would I want to pay more than the regular rate?
A: To support the publication to help it thrive and stay online: this kind of support means less future need for price increases (and smaller increases when they do happen), which enables more people to upgrade. This option was requested by existing Premium subscribers.