The Ethics of Writing and Citing
January 15, 2008 · Written by Melissa Donovan
There’s an interesting conversation over at Problogger about an incident in which a news reporter filched information from a blog for a front page article without citing the blog as a source. Donald, who authors the blog Kamloops Inside Out (and whose last name I was unable to locate) explains:
I was excited to see the front page of the Kamloops Daily News this morning. The headline regarding shaky b-ball goals caught my attention. I read the article, like many of you. I looked through it…I couldn’t see it…maybe I missed it…puruse [sic] it again…where is it… For sure, it’s not there. That’s right, no props for the source. No head nod to the impetus of the story. No…nothing - I was hoping for just something that said kamloopsinsideout.ca
You can read Donald’s whole post here, and make sure you pay special attention to the first comment, which was a response from Michele Young, the journalist who wrote the offending article. After a diatribe in which she attempts to defend her actions, she states that “News media do not name someone for raising a question. They do raise sources who provide answers.”
This story raises many interesting issues about the ethics of writing, and particularly about the ethics of news reporting, which is indeed a function of many blogs. When it comes to citing sources, there are many considerations:
Ideas Cannot Be Copyrighted
I get ideas from other blogs all the time. If I’m using a blog post as a spring board, I cite it and link back. Even if my post is just loosely related to another post, I’ll try to include a link and let readers know where I got my notion. I make an equal effort to cite print resources as well. That’s not just good blogging, it’s ethical writing, and polite human behavior. However, often we will read an article, post, or whole book, and some small portion of it will trigger a bigger idea. It would be impossible to cite every single bit of material from which we have received inspiration.
Journalists Only Cite Concrete and Credible Sources
It would be rather unusual for a news reporter to kick off an article with, “I was reading this blog today, and they were discussing…” Usually, one news source gets the scoop on a story, and within hours, every other news source on the planet is regurgitating it. Whether they’re pinching the details off one another or each doing their own legwork, I have no idea, but they certainly don’t sit there reporting on where every bit of information came from. Such stories will have a few citations in order to establish credibility, but every single origin is not, and could not, possibly be named. Otherwise, every newspaper would need an entire bibliography.
Refusing to Cite Sources is Unethical and Just Bad Journalism
When major players pilfer off the wee folk and reap the credit and rewards, it’s a disgrace, and they should be ashamed. If a print news reporter gets a scoop off a blog, then it is her duty to attribute the blog. Failing to do so is a missed opportunity to establish a relationship with a potential ongoing source. Besides, pissing off bloggers is never a good idea. With the exception of a few of the most major newspapers in the world, blogs have a much broader potential reach than most print newspapers, which are localized while blogs are global in nature. Most reporters would jump at the chance to cite a top dog, like the president, or a five star celebrity, but bloggers are expendable and rarely warrant a mention.
Newspapers Are Not Blogs
This we know, but let’s look at some of the cultural differences. Bloggers strive to build community, and bloggers actively cite, link to, and otherwise promote their stiffest competition, something that I’d wager most newspapers refrain from doing whenever possible. In addition, bloggers tend to propagate ideas, and if you watch closely, you’ll see that many blog posts reappear with countless twists and variations throughout the blogosphere. That is the nature of the community, and is one of its strengths. We share information, we share ideas, and we share cyberspace. Print journalism still operates in a highly competitive and old-fashioned business model. Think of it this way: a blog is like a high speed personal computer while a print newspaper is more like an abacus.
Here’s My Take
I wish I’d had an opportunity to read the print article that kicked off this whole debate. It would be interesting to study that article’s content against Donald’s original blog post. I wonder just how much of his post made its way into her piece. He says that when he confronted her in person, she remarked, “I guess I stole it.” She claims that she can’t recall uttering those implicative words, but also notes that she was “focused on other things” and that he caught her off guard. As far as I’m concerned, she’s openly admitted that the bulk of her article came from his blog and that she could have sourced him, but chose not to, a choice which could have dire repercussions if the blogger decides to go to her editor, or a competing newspaper.
Writers should know better than anyone to watch their words, and journalists in particular. As for me, I lost faith in print journalism a long time ago. In the recent years since the Internet and its embedded blogosphere have made news far more objective, I increasingly find that traditional news (TV, print, whatever) tend to leave much out, and almost every story has a slant, which I find political, unethical, and a disgrace to the profession that is journalism.
I would guess that plenty of fine journalists are incensed over the way their peers behave. Personally, I’m glad that deviant reporters are often exposed through new media, and my suggestion to those reporters who prefer to retain a moral standard is this: get yourself a blog.
Email this article to a friend
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Thanks for this article. It offers a lot of good information as does the rest of your blog. I read (lurk) regularly and have the RSS feed.
I would however have to disagree with one statement. I don’t think blogging has made the news and information more objective. I think it has, however, made it easier to see the slant in the first place. Bloggers are usually upfront and center with their biases and their takes on a given issue…a much more honest approach I believe.
The problem with traditional news media is not that it is slanted or biased, it is that it claims objectivity and then fails miserably to deliver. Traditional news sources are far from objective, they just make it harder for you to determine which way they are slanted. I would much prefer them to just state their bias from the beginning…at least then it would be more obvious where they stood.
I hate that this happened to Donald. Amazing, just amazing what some “writers” try to pull off!
I like your last sentence too!
@Eric, Thanks for reading my blog, and I’m glad you decided to comment. I think that you’re right that on a per-blog basis, blogging has not made news more objective. However, the news available as a whole has become more objective because there are so many more people writing and presenting views, which provides readers with a broader range alternatives and ideas.
Yes, I too would prefer if the media would just openly state their position before reporting on a story. I know when I’m watching Fox I’m getting the conservative slant, and when I watch CNN, there’s a liberal slant, but many other news sources are more subtle.
I think it would be difficult to report objectively as a news journalist. If you feel passionately about something, it would a challenge indeed to write about it without injecting your views, even just a little bit.
@Michele, I feel for Donald too. All of us bloggers are in a position to experience that kind of rebuff, and from what I understand, it is by no means infrequent. Thanks Michele
There are a multitude of sources that come into play when we’re first in the idea waterfall and it would be impossible to cite all of them, but in a case like this a simple nod to the original idea, even as a basis for readers to find more information or go to get feedback, would have made the news story more interesting, not less.
I think that is where print media is falling behind. New technologies are demanding an interactivity with readers and newspapers are failing to step forward with the times. Perhaps they believe their tried and true methods can withstand the test of time but ultimately, if they don’t change they’ll fall to the wayside as a source of information and become nothing more than a rag full of old news and advertising.
Is there a link to the Kamloops Daily News article? Because I’m not willing to jump to the conclusion that the journalist did anything unethical, despite her stupidly flippant “I guess I stole it” remark. Did she lift language out of the blog post? Did she claim to observe something that only Donald witnessed? Was Donald’s query so distinctive that no one else was likely to formulate it? Was the article an opinion column or a straight-ahead news report?
For any story, a journalist is likely to be perusing a wide number of sources, some of which will be cited with direct quotes, some of which will only be background. A tip of the hat for inspirational sources is polite, but I don’t believe it’s always mandatory.
You’re right, Melissa. When we put our heart and words out there for the world to see, anything can happen. It’s sad, really.
Rebecca,
I agree that print news doesn’t have the interaction online news sites can provide, but it will be strange to watch it disappear and become extinct if it does.
…if they don’t change they’ll fall to the wayside as a source of information and become nothing more than a rag full of old news and advertising.
LOVE the way you said that!
Publishing an article without quoting the source is just plain unethical!
shouldn’t it be PERUSE, not PURUSE? as written above? just wondering…
@Rebecca, Yes, it’s all about interactivity and the Internet provides that in abundance. I’ve heard that many print newspapers are closing their doors because they can’t compete with the Internet. Every business needs to have the flexibility to change with the market.
@Mike, There is no link to the print article. As I mentioned toward the end of my post, it would be much easier to draw a conclusion about this situation if we could see that article.
@Deimos, Many writers would agree with you.
@haily, I need to do a post on how to offer critiques. I’ll work on that for next week, so be sure to check back.
This post got me thinking about a Golf blog site that I used to frequent last year. The blogger wrote an article about Phil Mickelson winning a tournament, but she incorrectly identified the tournament name. I placed a comment in the blog pointing this out to her. The next day I found she corrected the article, but REMOVED MY COMMENT! She didn’t want to admit her mistake. Oooh, that was a slap on the face.
The dangers of blogging, I suppose. Sometimes good deeds are punished.
ooops! no offense meant just checking my own vocabulary…