Journalism or Plagarism?
About a month ago, we were very excited to be interrupted in a team meeting…after all, the Wall Street Journal was calling. Of course, we were stoked; it’s not every day that the Wall Street Journal calls to find out more information about your company.
Over the course of a couple weeks, the reporter called numerous times to ask questions about entrepreneurship and angel investing — and we were happy to give her whatever she needed. We referred her to a few entrepreneurs and angel investors, and in return, she said that she would include a blurp about FundingUniverse.com. In addition, she called me specifically to get 5 tips for entrepreneurs that she “was planning to use in a sidebar of the story.” In preparation for the article to be published, we worked tirelessly to finish a few products to have ready for the possible spike in traffic.
When the day finally arrived (Jan. 30, 2006), I searched the Wall Street website and starting reading the article. I noticed that it included quotes from the entrepreneur that we connected them with…and 3 of my exact tips in the side bar, but no reference to me or FundingUniverse.com! Check it out.
To be honest, I really didn’t care that it didn’t include my name in the article, but I didn’t think that it was right to publish the article without any reference to FundingUniverse.com. The funny thing is…they decided to use our content later in an article for their StartupJournal section of WSJ. Here is a link to that article — you will notice that the tips seem very familiar to the article that was printed in the WSJ print edition on Jan. 30th.
Now the question…is that journalism or plagarism?
The two are not mutually exclusive.
What you’ve described is a form of plagiarism:
“Plagiarism refers to the use of another’s ideas, information, language, or writing, when done without proper acknowledgment of the original source. Essential to an act of plagiarism is an element of dishonesty in attempting to pass off the plagiarised work as original. Plagiarism is not necessarily the same as copyright infringement, which occurs when one violates copyright law.” — Wikipedia
But it’s also “good” journalism.
I’ve noticed that almost every news story that I’ve had personal knowledge of is reported with a slant, and that reporters almost NEVER give their sources. This makes it easier for reporters to misquote you -or worse, to bend your words by quoting you out of context.
That’s part of what makes journalism the worse kind of writing out there. Reporters have no obligation (nor even an expectation) to reveal their sources. And no, they generally don’t want to give you credit for your contribution. It’s *their* story, and they want the credit.
Another other important reason journalism sucks is (of course) sensationalism. If the reporter can give your words a good spin, his or her chances of getting the story published are increased. In other words, reporters are are rewarded if they can BS a story to the front page.
I would love to create a news site where every story has a link to resources where the full interview is published in full text and mp3 recording so that readers can determine whether important details were left out. Interviewees should be able to opt-in to follow-up questions or additional commentary. If important data is left out, it becomes blatantly obvious.
Sorry, I just got ranting… I obviously have a lot more to say about this. I’ve been meaning to blog about a need for openness in journalism. I should have kept it shorter, but this just totally burns me up.
Anyway. At least they listed the source in the second story. And for fairness, the WSJ is *much* better than other papers.
[...] Brock Blake of Funding Universe wants to know if what the Wall Street Journal did to him (by repeatedly interviewing him, then publishing his information without attribution) is plagiarism. [...]
I have to agree that this is a little bit of both. As both a journalst and a plagiarism fighter, it seems to walk in both worlds.
There are plenty of times a journalist doesn’t cite sources. For example, if I were to ask you a general question about your site and use a paraphrased version of your answer, that would be generally acceptable. The reason is that most such facts are easily checkable and can be confirmed.
Still, to take tips like that from someone is clearly different. One might say that that is a creative work, after all, they’re your ideas and not necessarily hard “facts” that can be looked up.
Generally, whenever a piece of information can’t be 100% verified or might land the reporter in legal trouble, they cite the source so the reader can decide whether or not to trust it.
In my personal opinion, the tips should have been credited properly, not just because they were creative works, but to cover the reporter’s own hind end. Seems like a win-win to me.
I’m sorry that he didn’t make that choice, I have a feeling it was either an error in judgment or just a good old fashioned screw up.
I didn’t read the article because I can’t access it, but you can’t assume that the reporter has never heard your tips before (not from you), but in that form.
I work with reporters on a daily basis and was a reporter once myself, and I have come to find that some of them are very, very smart in their subject areas and have seen and heard just about anything you could tell them. So, do they need to credit a source with information they already have in their minds?
On the other hand, if they didn’t credit you, you can always tell them. They will usually fix it. It happens all the time by mistake. Part of what I have to do as a PR professional is correct incorrect information. And, journalists are more than happy to oblige when I point something out to them because spreading truth is at the core of what they want to accomplish.