In case you missed it, AP recently lifted an article as researched and written by RAW STORY and published a version of it as their own. Along the way, they seem to have forgotten to give RAW the attribution they deserved for the many hours of research and work they put into the story in order to file the piece in the first place.
RAW’s Larisa Alexandrovna originally discovered the gem after plowing through a bunch of Bush Administration policy statements on National Security Clearance policies and comparing the most recent version to previous versions of that same policy side-by-side. One of the RAW researchers confirmed her work and the subtle, but important changes she found, and then Larisa, along with RAW’s Executive Editor John Byrne finally filed the piece at RawStory.com.
After all of that hard work, a human rights group shared RAW’s story with AP who eventually filed their own very familiar story using the work as originally unearthed by RAW. They’ve since admitted to being given RAW’s article and using it as the starting point for their own work, which walks a dangerously close line towards plagarism.
But even as they now admit that their story originated with RAW’s reporting, they still refuse to give credit where credit’s due. They’ve now given several lame and still-changing reasons for failing to acknowledge the “oversight” including “we do not credit blogs” and later, “we only credit blogs we know.”
Larisa writes about the matter at Huff Po here and here, and John Byrne wrote an article covering AP’s comments and comparing both articles directly for RAW here.
Setting aside the fact that RAW STORY is NOT EVEN A BLOG — apparently any independent news source which originates on the Internet is now considered a “blog” by some in the MSM…all the easier to dismiss them by, we suppose — The BRAD BLOG is a blog and yet we find the practice of failing to give us due credit equally objectionable for the many stories we have broken which were later picked up by the MSM as well.
Though most “blogs” do not do the sort of original reporting that we do here, it’s certainly harder to argue that we’re not one — what with the word “BLOG” in our name and all. And yet, I’m forced to ask: What the hell does the word “blog” have to do with anything anyway?
Journalism is journalism is journalism. The quality of the reporting and the journalism therein is what matters no matter the name given to the media originating the work.
The reason that all of this matters is not so that Larisa or RAW or even myself or The BRAD BLOG receives some form of personal adulation or ego stroke for our hard work.
So if not for the good of our own personal self-esteem, why does proper credit to such sources really matter?…
It matters because while Internet news sites such as RAW, and yes BRAD BLOG, continue to dig and investigate and report day in and day out on stories that matter to this country and this world, recognition for that work by others is paramount to our ability to continue to produce such work. Appropriate recognition and attribution from others is essential if we are to see our work picked up elsewhere and otherwise advanced by officials and the Mainstream and any other damned Media source which can add to that reporting and bring us all closer eventually to whatever truth is contained therein!
I’ve noticed a very similar pattern emerging of late as more and more MSM outlets pick up on much of the Election Integrity/Reform/Fraud issues that we’ve been reporting on steadily and doggedly for almost two years now. I’ve been polite, yet fairly persistent, in pointing it out along the way.
While I’m very happy to see MSM outlets bring stories which orginated here to a wider audience, I don’t seek personal credit for myself or this Internet news site simply because it’s nice to see my name in the Washington Post or AP or USA Today.
The reason it’s important for these outlets to give proper attribution — aside from being polite and appropriate and professional and we always do the same for them — is because their recognition of the credibility of our work from yesterday lends credibility to our work in the future.
Like RAW STORY, I’ve seen many huge and time-consuming articles of great importance simply ignored by the MSM and even many corners of the blogosphere. It’s very easy, therefore, for the “bad guys” to simply dismiss our work, no matter how groundbreaking and well sourced, as “insignificant” under the notion that “if it was actually important or credible it would be reported by the mainstream media.” I hear that quite a bit.
Yet when it is reported later by the MSM, sometimes days, weeks, months and now even years later, they feel they needn’t mention where those stories orginated.
So tomorrow’s time-consuming and important exposé will yet again be ignored (happily) by the “bad guys” until such time as AP or New York Times or the Fort Worth Star Telegram decides they wish to run a recycled version of the reporting as if it’s their very own.
In the meantime, those “insignificant” “couldn’t be credible” sites like RAW STORY and BRAD BLOG, and many others like us (Larisa mentions just a few of them in her piece), press on, beg for $5 and $10 donations so we can simply “put food on our families” (as Dubya would say) and hope to survive yet another week to report yet another ground-breaking story for the MSM to later treat as an anonymous tip whenever — and if — they feel like it so that the “bad guys” implicated in the meantime can cross their fingers, hold their breath, and simply hope to see it all just go away.
RAW STORY has been doing the work of angels for more than two years. BRAD BLOG has been doing the work of fallen angels for just about the same amount of time.
We’d both like to continue to do so. Yet when the MSM fail to bestow on us their magic blessing of “credibility” via proper and appropriate attribution, despite the proven credibility of our work (time and time again), it may serve their own business interests in staving off the rise of the independent citizen journalists…But it certainly does nothing for the cause of true journalism — and more importantly for the search for truth, which everyone who even dabbles in this particular field should admit as being the ultimate goal of our collective work.
These truths should be self-evident. No matter which of us are on the salaried payrolls of huge multinational conglomerates or willing to bow our heads with humility and a touch of shame simply to beg for a few more dollars to help make this month’s rent. No matter whether our journalistic and credible work is distrubuted via newsprint, cyberprint, Internet news site or “blog”…whatever the hell that means.
AP should set the record straight concerning the story they lifted from RAW. Immediately.
And the rest of the MSM ought to get their act together and start giving credit where it is due. Because it matters.
As Stephen Colbert would say: “MSM, you’re on notice.”
UPDATE 4/2/06: Editor & Publisher publishes a slightly shortened/edited version of this Braditorial. Details on that — along with another incident of MSM ripping off RAW STORY without credit, this time the Wall Street Journal — posted right here…
OK, wouldn’t reading, and then re-writing the Raw Story article make AP "know" about Raw Story?
What a fucking lame excuse! Besides that Raw Story isn’t a blog, the very ACT OF READING AND RE-WRITING makes you KNOW ABOUT Raw Story.
Just like if I read and then re-wrote "1984" would make me "know about" George Orwell, even if I didn’t know about George Orwell before reading the book.
Brad
People are molded to some degree by the people they hang with.
The MSM has been hanging with the regime, been in bed with them (embedded), and have allowed the propaganda to flow freely (paid for by taxpayer money in several instances).
They are hanging with thiefs and those who disrespect journalism, and who are integrity challenged.
Every once in awhile that is going to have an effect on the MSM.
Yep, they don’t embrace the BLOG, however, their resistance is futile, because blogs can’t be ignored any more.
So come on MSM, hang with us, and lets talk straight and fearlessly to power. Like it once was.
I think it’s CLEAR why they don’t want to "reference blogs" in their stories. If people know they can find "free news" that is a LOT more pertinent on the internet, why would they buy paper newspapers any more?
The print media is about to die at the hands of the Internet. Once all this crap comes out about this vile criminal Administration and people find out that the Internet had the info a LONG time ago, more and more people will gravitate to the blogs. No one will buy "papers" anymore and will just supliment their news from the internet with TV news (which may or may not adjust to follow suit with the ‘net once Shrubby is out of office).
I’m with you, Brad. You might also have added that appropriate attribution increases the MSM’s own credibility, since facts have a way of being humbly democratic!
BTW, Your recent e-voting pieces are being linked across the web now. So you’re reaching MANY people, not just regulars, and having a huge impact.
Also *tiny voice* I’ll try to contact PayPal within the week, Brad. It’s not been a good winter.
Excellently well said, Brad, as usual!
I agree that they ought to give credit where it’s due.
However, with such an admission from the AP, why doesn’t Raw Story in general, and Ms. Alexandrovna in particular, initiate legal action against the AP?
She doesn’t even need to win (which I think she would stand a good chance of doing.) Just by showing up in court will give the AP a bad (worse?) name.
However, I think it would never come to that. After such a suit is filed. the AP would "read the handwriting on the walls" and "magically" (and VERY QUIETLY) issue the correction that Ms. Alexandrovna is looking for.
AP = America’s Pravda
#3 Savantster
"I think it’s CLEAR why they don’t want to "reference blogs" in their stories. If people know they can find "free news" that is a LOT more pertinent on the internet, why would they buy paper newspapers any more?"
I think you hit the nail on the head Savantster. They also don’t realize just how many of us have been following the blogs and news sites like Rawstory since November 04. (For the REAL news) Maybe the 6-7 of us should let them know:)
MrBlueSky has the answer. RawStory should sue AP for plagiarism. Sermons are going to make any difference to an impersonal news service that operates around the globe. AP couldn’t care less what any of us think, because they’re a news wholesaler; they deal with end users, newspapers.
Hitting them in the pocketbook is the way to go.
"aren’t going to make any difference"
Brad,
You and many other independent news sites are doing lots of great work and your traffic will continue to grow.
Mainstream media has an authority syndrome where alternative news sites are not recognised as authorities by MSM because it doesn’t fit their worldview where in order to be recognised as an authority a news source has to be or has to be owned by a major corporation.
This will change slowly because MSM news are terrified that Internet and blogs wil steal their lunch.
I’m sure it is getting harder for the MSM reporters who lift stories from alternative news without attribution to look themselves in the mirror…
Savantster #3
I also agree with you. I used to subscribe to the newspaper daily and rush home for the national news on TV. I no longer subscribe to the newspaper and mostly watch the national news to hurl insults and corrections at them. Raw Story, Truthout, The Free Press and of course BradBlog along with Free Speech Radio and TV have become my trusted sources of what is important these days.
When I have worked in news outlets in three of the top ten U.S. markets, the AP reporters incessantly complained that their work was routinely lifted from the wires and transplanted wholesale by lazy newswriters, with no attribution whatsoever.
The AP reporters routinely expressed deep frustration that such a small but significant phrase, "as reported by the AP", was evidently impossible to add to copy that would be seen or heard by millions of people. They deplored the self-serving use of their hard work on the ground, often in the face of danger, from which that lazy writer would reap the credibility for their toil.
Credibility is the only true coin of the realm in journalism.
Even as a ‘wholesaler" of news product, as RLM #9 correctly states, AP reporters and their client news outlets are well aware of this troubling facet of "plagiarism". It is sadly ironic that, when given the chance, the AP does not hesitate to dish out the same unethical behavior and lazy excuses for stealing the hard work of another.
Unfortunately, it isn’t just Larisa that’s getting affected by this. UPI also did this to Chris Deliso in lifting comments on some of his work on Sibel Edmonds, even though they issued an apology later for doing so. Chris has a hard enough time even getting linked by DemocraticUnderground posts, since anti-war.com is considered "racist" there. These journalists need a break! They are doing the hard work for us out there now in keeping this administration accountable and are getting hit from all sides!
PI Plagiarizes Balkanalysis.com, Prints Tepid Apology
The law is clear and covered in both case and statute; when one publishes something on their website, it is automatically ‘copyrighted’. While ‘fair use’ does allow the ‘reprinting’, it also demands that credit be issued. Yes, Raw Story should bring suit but such is expensive. Probably better that it be a class action even though that restricts the case to the federal courts.
Well put, Brad!
At least when Christine Craft here in Sacramento on our local progressive radio KSAC120AM attributes BradBlog when she qoutes articles from the blog. She also does the same for Raw Story and other blogs. She always gives a plug for the blogs as well.
ubetchaiam #15
Why do you believe that class action lawsuits are limited to the state courts?
Here is a link to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23.
This rule governs class actions in the federal courts, which happen every day.
Proper credit has very little to do with the reasons for attribution. Its really about good journalism and quality of information.
For years reporters took stories from the Drudge Report without stating that its where the stories originated. Once the story was mainstreamed, the basis for the story, including the truth of the underlying facts was rarely questioned. In most cases, the source of the story is an important fact in judging its credibility. The exception usually is where the facts are in the public domain and independently verifiable. If a reporter relies on reporting by another outlet rather than doing their own investigation and fact checking, then as a reader I’d want to know who.
Operators of Blogs, by the way, are not completely innocent of doing exactly the same thing, from both other blogs and MSM.
I don’t get it. Is the AP claiming to be a blog to defend its plagairism? It seems if you want good news these days, you have to hire fake reporters.
I wonder what the legal affect would be of adding a footer to all posted reports claiming OUT LOUD the copyright, but permitting reprinting provided full credit is given to the source.
A copyright may be automatic — I’m not a lawyer and don’t know — but putting others on notice of what is expected at the very least takes away any plea of ignorance or some such other excuse.
When such a notice is posted with the work, it gives a lovely basis for a demand letter later when evidence of the theft presents itself. How embarrassing for a so-called MSM "pro" to be caught doing what they warn others not to do. Routinely. In their own publications. How stupid.
E-ffect. Legal effect.
Grr.
Keep hammering for respect. Taking someone’s ideas and presenting them as your own is theft, plain and simple.
It does not matter what the source of the idea was — if it is unattributed, and not originating with the author in question, then it is stealing.
Deliberately fraud, when those caught make excuses and refuse to correct or amend their transgression.
Thanks for bringing this issue to your readers attention.
I agree with others that part of the problem stems from the competition the Internet is giving to traditional media forms.
But what really bugs me about this whole thing is that McClelland or Dubya or Shooter or Rummy are still stringently ‘attributed’ even though we now have 5 years of experience suggesting that any statement they make cannot be taken at face value. In today’s America what liars say is attributed without thought but those who struggle to tell the truth as they understand it are simply disappeared through non-attribution.
tercüme
😉