What is Digg?58 Comments
- whatthefu, on 05/28/2009, -0/+20No, that's not the point. News organizations compete against one another. When they freely take information gained from a rival in such a way and present it as their own, that's dishonest. News organizations need to do their own reporting, and not just take ***** from another organization that has done all the work. It's important that they do their own work so that there isn't just one story spreading around like wildfire with only one source to really confirm whether or not it's true.
- WiggyWack, on 05/27/2009, -1/+16Well, at least the Internet is all original content.
- Mhykol, on 05/28/2009, -0/+13Let me start off that I work for a newspaper. Yea yea...newspapers are dying.
Anyways, I see this happen quite often here and it's not just TV, but radio does it as well. An article that we publish in the morning will be repeated on the 6 o'clock news and it's not a disaster or event that everyone would report. The latest example we did a report on how cheap it is to own a billboard on the interstates here. Just that night the local news reported the same thing using the same information we researched and published. The kicker? They didn't get our permission or credit us for our research. - Blinker1315, on 05/27/2009, -1/+13Well, yes, of course. Sometimes sources are acknowledged, other times not. You have to wonder what'll happen when the New York Times goes belly-up or stops producing so much news. Will Brian Williams rip 'n' read from The Daily Kos? Yikes!
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -2/+13A little ironic that a BLOG is talking about how other forms of media plagiarize.
- highlatitude, on 05/28/2009, -0/+11Not to mention some viewers would actually prefer to hear a source. I hate watching the news and hearing some ridiculous statement with no source acknowledged.
- TheNyquilKid, on 05/28/2009, -1/+7Of course it is, they taught us how to legally plagiarize the AP in broadcast school.
- Smokeydabear, on 05/28/2009, -0/+5Most radio stations ***** rip off newspapers, and a lot of television stations do it too. It ***** sucks because there is so much more work going into the written story. That is why newspapers won't completely die off, because idiot disk jockeys will need copy to steal.
- fotomatt, on 05/28/2009, -0/+5Nah... they don't get it from anywhere. They just make it up.
- enozten, on 05/28/2009, -0/+5right =/= write
where did you go to college?
:( - inactive, on 05/28/2009, -6/+10Who gives a *****?
It's just news
That's what news is right?
It shouldn't have some copyright ***** bossing it around all the damn time - darkism, on 05/28/2009, -2/+6Who cares? The definition of "plagiarism" has really gotten broad these days.
Sharing is caring, whether it's files, ideas or words.
(and yes, I went to journalism school) - h8f8kes, on 05/28/2009, -0/+4You forgot the tag.
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -1/+5not at fox. they say exactly what they are told to.
- philodygmn, on 05/28/2009, -0/+3Metadata like maybe microformats or standardized XML schema need to provide an automated way of attaching a credit breadcrumb trail to media assets.
- fabeetz, on 05/28/2009, -0/+3Maureen Dowd
- m4rty, on 05/28/2009, -0/+3well i'm majoring in broadcast journalism starting this fall. I'm all about being the communicator of the news - not necessarily the writer of it.
- Joshper85, on 05/28/2009, -0/+3we need newspapers!!!
- Schmapdi, on 05/28/2009, -1/+4I was a Journalism major in college a few years ago - our school was divided into print and broadcast majors. The print kids (including me) always ripped on the broadcast kids for being empty suits and airheads and whatnot. A comparison:
Print major: "Man, I have to right this 20 page series during my finals period, suck."
Broadcast: "I know - I have to go shoot a 2 minute reel on location - what a rip!"
Print: *Evil Eye at broadcast kid* - JoeParanoid, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2Hunh. I didn't even know it was journalism. And who would want to admit they were the plagiarized victim of that crap?
- 10lbhammer, on 05/27/2009, -3/+5I would hazard a guess that FOXnews does this often: take a story from someone else, don't do any research to determine the validity, "re-write" it into a sensationalist news bite, profit...
- fotoman607, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2yes
- radiodork, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2A reporter around here is particularly annoyed by these practices.
He calls those that do it "Re-Reporters".
It makes me giggle. - CaliforniaEagle, on 05/28/2009, -1/+3...No just propaganda
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -4/+6Tell that to the Los Angeles Times:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/How_Jewish_is_Ho ... - baiwushi, on 05/27/2009, -0/+2At least since it's all the same everywhere, you just only have to see it once. Media is just taking your time into consideration.
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -7/+9Anybody who still trusts the mainstream media for anything is gullible and naive. A look on who controls the media. http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america/wra.pdf
- TheoWelles, on 05/28/2009, -1/+2THIS IS HOW ***** DONE:
Fox News reads the headlines from the big papers, then calls up a panel of guests either with conflicting views, or with a history of fellating Sean Hannity. Then! They go to air, with the broadcaster acting like a loudmouth know-it-all, who supplants his ignorant views on the headline his producers read that morning. If the panel member acts in disgust/disagreement/apathy, the broadcaster lampoons their opinions and supplements his own. If a panel member agrees, they are treated like a hero for America, who would go down on Sean Hannity/O'Reilly/Greta Van Dyke in an instant. This is repeated every 10 minutes, of every hour of programing they do on the station.
The exception being Glenn Beck, his show is formulated by a complex series of numbers he sees in his daily world, to which he believes is bringing a social apocalypse. - mustard333, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1Plagiarized and edited to suit opinion and viewpoint.
- deema1, on 05/28/2009, -1/+2All of journalism today is a joke. There's no investigative reporting anymore. It's all biased propaganda pieces.
- thurows, on 05/28/2009, -1/+2I always get things off of google, digg or other news sites before they air on the local radio station, sometimes days or weeks before.
- chicagojack, on 05/27/2009, -1/+2duh
- gwgrayson, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1I'm a reporter for a small town paper. I just graduated college, have been here maybe 6 months and I've got 20 year "veteran" newscasters here at the local TV station ripping my stories off left and right, sometimes word for word. All of which were stories or events I covered where the TV cameras were strangely absent.
- Bob177, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1...or they just make it up as they go....
- otbeverly, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1Yea, but most radio stations are either subscribing to a local or national news source. And when you're reading off headlines and maybe a sentence or two that might be ripped straight from a newspaper story or rewritten, it's different. It seems radio is better at attributing sources as well (at least the national syndicates). Some radio stations also provide reading services for the blind where they literally read the entire newspaper, but that's usually public radio.
However, rewriting other people's stuff is done all the time on the news side. Not necessarily with news story themselves, but press releases from an assortment of sources. Most are crap, but some are rewritten and published in your local daily. A press release could notify a newspaper of a sewage overflow, but the newspaper will still attribute the information to City of XYZ Water & Sewer Service. I work in a sports department and we rewrite press releases sent from local colleges and universities all the time without attributing the source (other than staff report) ... but that's a little different. - Smokeydabear, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1Alright, I can see your point, but it depends on the market. I have sat and listened to radio stations read my stuff verbatim and unattributed several many times. A rewrite of a press release is one thing, but an actual story is another thing.
- dsmith5237, on 05/28/2009, -2/+3Isn't that why media companies join the AP?
- jaymzdean, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1That may be true, but the content is original.
- gordigor, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1No.
- Lonandubh, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1Imagine you spent all day at work, designing an automatic widget-maker, so that you can sell more widgets. You make a run of widgets, and then go to bed after a long day, and will have a long day of selling widgets the next day.
Now imagine that, in the middle of the night, your rival, Faster Widgets™, came in to your garage during the night, ran your Widget-maker, using electricity from your house, and nobody is coming to market for widgets because they bought their widget through the Faster Widgets™ door-to-door program.
You did basically all the work, and they're getting the cash, and when you ask that they say "Widgets made by Honest Widgetry™," your company, they refuse. And at the same time you have to skimp on eating out, vacations, cable, internet, and other luxuries because you can't sell enough widgets.
No, what broadcast media are doing is Wrong, and if they paid for the product they're selling, newspapers might not be having the problems they do... - JoeLosFeliz, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1It's not the use of the material that bothers me, it's the lack of attribution. Regurgitating material produced by someone else in a slightly different form and pretending that it is something that you made yourself is at best sort of lame - at worst, intellectual theft. I realize that this isn't always a black and white issue, but taking someone else's work and saying you did it is, by definition, plagiarism.
- Twee, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1No, that site and the drudge report are super biased and slanted. The horrible web design doesn't help either. It's not that difficult to setup a nice looking WordPress blog!
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1Yes, heaven forbid you write your own material when you can steal someone else's and call it "caring".
- cherrysweet00, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1Maybe; it's ridiculously repetitive. Sort of like some of the wingnut threads on these sites!
- jaymzdean, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1So...you're a plumber?
- ajkrik, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1News agencies don't HAVE to do anything but obey the law. Plagiarism is the new "evils of piracy" rant. Crying plagiarism about everything is the sound of desperate people being dragged into modern times of technology. Nothing is original any more.
- Hermmunster, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1I was listening to a web tv program and the topic of google linking stories was brought up. That brought up the fact that these news entities (TV and print) actually never pay the individuals in the story for the story. It's not like it is the news entities stories or that they'd have anything to say without the individuals. The point is that they didn't pay so why should anyone else have to pay to aggregate the links to those sites? These people are boring inconpetents. Move on.
- otbeverly, on 05/29/2009, -0/+1I agree. Most radio stations have some affiliation with a local media source. But now that you mention it, most of them seem to be television. I don't think my newspaper is associated with any radio affiliate (though we do team up with a local TV station for things like hurricane coverage). And being from a city whose media is most famous for a story about a Leprechaun (and we didn't go anywhere near that "story," BTW), I can acknowledge that many of the details relayed on TV come from the newspaper. A murder, for example, that occurred the night before. While the TV station may have heard of it through a release or over the police scanner, they usually will get the details from the news story with the exception of any on-scene reports.
I kind of draw a distinction between newsreaders (anchors and weathermen) and TV reporters. I'd be pissed if a TV reporter plaigirized something I wrote. If it's an anchor, who is simply reading the teleprompter information input by a producer, or a TV weatherman, who is getting his radar images an forecasts from the NWS, I don't have too much of a problem. - wpi97, on 05/28/2009, -3/+4Yes, he can. He also believes in the blood libel.
-
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is