A remarkably cool and removed essay at the Poynter Institute site late last week addressed an issue that appears to be a non-issue for a surprising number of the internet and digital era's "news" outlets. At stake are practices that have gotten a steady diet of grumping from me among others here at ksjtracker. They stem from the use of information, including supposedly verbatim quotes, straight off press releases.
- Mallory Jean Tenore (Poynter assoc. editor): 6 ways journalists can use press releases effectively
There is much to chew on in Ms. Tenore's rightly link-strewn piece. Speaking of chewing, I'll take a bite out of the article's entirely positive tone. Which declares that a good way to regard a press release is as a "starting point for finding sources and getting ideas." The tip list then says one's reporting should go beyond social media. Huh? Just check out twitter and facebook? Well yeh, going beyond that seems a good policy. She goes on to write that if you don't do your own reporting, "you might miss other key information that helps round out the story." You could, yes. It seems from here that if you don't do your own reporting then calling yourself the reporter of such story is a lie in most scenarios one might imagine. Yet I know from years of monitoring the stream of science news some writers of just such cut, paste, and rewrite jobs can expect to see their bylines on them.
She also summarizes an "informal" poll on this general issue. Informal is a circumlocutionary way to say non-scientific. That means it doesn't mean much. The poll was passive. It depended on readers of the site to click a button reflecting their opinion ranging from it's all right to lift things verbatim from releases without attribution (only 20 percent said yes) or to choose from among a sequence of evermore negative reactions ending with declaration that such an act is plagiarism (3 percent agreed with that).
What does Tenore really think? That it is merely a good idea to do one's own reporting because that makes for a better story? Is this like it being a good idea to write clear, objective-voice, and succinct prose rather than the muddy kind but either way it may qualify as authentic journalism? I'd rather that an associate editor for this prominent journalism-promoting organization slipped in a judgmental word or two. I'll offer a few: second-rate, or third-rate even, or sub-par (not to be confused with golf's below par that means good), or to ramp up the dudgeon: shoddy, unethical, or other terms meaning that it is not real journalism when anybody or any outlet routinely uses press release information without identifying it as such. One's own reporting should not be a bonus offering to the editor. This goes particularly for 'quoting' somebody when all one is quoting is a press release. If one's own ears didn't hear the source saying it, include the source whose writer implies he or she did hear it. There is mention here, with confirming links, of a newspaper columnist fired for repeatedly lifting verbiage straight from release, even the lede of a story or two. He is suing. I'd concede that firing may be a bit harsh if there were no warnings beforehand. But if the assertions I just read are true this columnist's insult to journalism's ethic looks clear enough to me.
– Charlie Petit
Leave a Reply