Where is the line between attribution and plagiarism?

Society: Going to hell becuase of the next generation since time began.

 

Bleacher Report built an empire on aggregation/plagiarism, and FUCK them.

 

Almost forgot ... any suggestion that a part of society has not improved can be written off as old-man grumpiness. Got it.

 

the line between attribution and plagiarism?

2003.

 

When it ends in "our society and the next generation of millennial slobs." Yep.

If one said, it reflects the speed at which information travels or structural changes in business or simply the incentive structure of the click economy, and that those things are all bad, this I wouldn't poke at. But that it's the lazy millennials, too easy.

 

Amazing his response to the decline in journalism is basically "You're old and washed up. This is the new way." So, yeah, I guess I'm old and washed up.

 

Here's the thing. I don't think you're old and washed up. I think you're probably a smart beat writer with a lot of insight on how to get the things done. I'm sure you have great insight on the finer points of source-building, quickly breaking onto a beat and all the rest. Heck, I'd love to know the mechanics of operating the way you do on a college beat these days. Between national writers and folks who blur a few lines, it's a jungle out there.

But if the decline of journalism is because young folks are lazy trash, then it is what it is. Past generations were just better. Simple as that. But it's probably not that simple. I responded to the idea that the answer is some easy insult and little else.

I'd love to muse about the structural issues. The way the speed information spreads changed everything. They way one used to have a day to get something confirmed, and now needs it in a few minutes. The way many folks are incentivized to turn what was once considered information one person possesses into a public good. There's also an interesting chat to be had about the different sorts of aggregation, are some OK? How to they reflect past practices, if at all. In the past did no outlets write stories built around "the New York Times reported."?

But if all that really comes down to people 22-37 are lazy slobs, well I guess it doesn't require much inspection.

 

It was always better back then, when everything was better.

 

On the contrary. I think it's the click-society suits causing this new trend. Let's say the Buffalo Bills backup QB gets arrested for DUI as reported by the Buffalo News. Let's say he used to play backup QB for the Colts and you are the Colts beat writer. It's probably worth writing it up and sourcing the Buffalo News because you are going to get your own clicks. Lazy? Sure. It could be called that as the Colts writer could do his/her own reporting on it. However that's a waste of time. The guy is just a backup QB and no longer with the Colts. You are going to get thousands of pageviews writing it up after you see it in the Buffalo News. Give the proper credit and all's well in the modern world of newspapers. You get your own clicks and the Buffalo News is no worse off. Agree?

 

Because I got all hot and bothered about it, figured I should do something to advance the conversation.

I was trying to think of different kinds of aggregation one might engage in. A lot of these obviously have a ton of overlap as well. (Numbered for reference)

- The there's-a-somewhat-unique-story-and-I-want-traffic-for-blowing-it-up story. This would be what Deadspin might do most egregiously. Lift the big chunks of the story, put their own headline on it, call it a day. We can call this always bad. (1)

- The this-is-big-news-reported-by-someone-very-big. This is often transactional. Let's use FSU as the example because of Doc's avatar. Let's say we're waiting on the Willie Taggart news. Let's say, I dunno, Bruce Feldman breaks it, and for whatever reason, confirmation isn't coming quick (maybe all my FSU sources are too loyal, maybe it's agents putting it out). On one hand, I don't have the info, so I haven't earned the payout. On the other hand, at some point, it's something my readers want to know that SI or ESPN has put it out there the coaching search is over. This could also be in realms where say Woj or Goodman traffics, maybe not something This might be the most generational, especially when it comes to posting while it's being confirmed. (2)

- The rumors-are-out-there aggregation. Bruce Feldman reports Justin Fuente is a candidate for the FSU job. Jeff Goodman reports Leonard Hamilton is looking at the Memphis job. Do you acknowledge these? Most coaches brush them off. Hopefully you have behind the scenes sourcing, which you should be using, but do you also write that this exists in the ether? (3)

- The someone-released-some-national-thing-but-there's-heavy-local-interest. Yahoo releases the FBI stuff, and Jonathan Isaac is listed. (4)

- The someone-national-talked-to-someone-important-on-my-beat. Willie Taggart talks to exclusively CBS online and delivers a lot of thoughts on some sort of important issues, like real or fake Christmas trees. (5)

- The pulling-a-detail-out-of-a-larger-story aggregation. A Wazzou fan friend gave a good example of this. SI did a great story with the family of Tyler Hilinski, whose parents also went on TV. They mentioned he had CTE. A lot of places, AP included, pulled that detail out and made that a story. (6)

-The pulling-out-something-on-the-team-I-cover-from-more-famous-outlet. ESPN grades Willie Taggart as the second-best hire of the cycle. ESPN didn't write something just about that, but that's the part FSU fans actually care about. It works with lists, random superlatives, basically repackaging someone else's filler. (NFL.com scout grades Dalvin Cook as a first rounder) (7)

-The grabbing-what-a-famous-reporter-or-expert said. This drives people on podcasts/TV/Radio bonkers. Andy Staples goes on Stew Mandel's podcast and says, "I think FSU is going to win six games." FSU writer writes top SI writer thinks FSU will barely make a bowl. This can oscillate in value/egregiousness. SEC Country was very good at taking a tweet and making a sensational headline from it. (8)

-The rounding-up-other-people's-thoughts. Similar to pulling from a team I cover, this would be like rounding up FSU's spots in bowl projections. That feels like a literal click rob, but also sort of accepted. (9)

The slightly grayer area
- The pulling-tweets-method. A friend's outlet wrote a story about a national political figure's tweet. I called it aggregation, he said it would be fine if it was a press conference, and it's the guy's account, so it should be tweeted as such. For an example, the Lt. Governor of Florida posts a video of himself doing something funny in FSU gear (10)

- The someone-important-talked-and-I-wasn't-there aggregation. This is a weird one. Let's say Willie Taggart spoke in Pensacola. Me, the FSU writer didn't drive there because they couldn't spare me for the three hours each way on a baseball night or something. But someone posts the whole video. Can I use it? Should I use it? What if he announces the starting QB is out until November. I won't be close to first, but should I ignore it? Go through the theater of confirmation? (11)

An odd case I don't know what to do with
-The this-is-a-semi-official-source aggregation. Let's say Ian Rapoport tweets Jameis Winston just signed a $18 million a year extension. That's basically the NFL announcing it laundered through a media wing. Is it something to write up? It's not something that's really ever on record. If I'm not good with his agent, just leave it be? (12)

I'm sure a few more will come to mind, but this is what came off the top of my head. I'm not condoning or arguing for or against any of these. Figured it would be good to see if any were particularly offensive or some were accepted. There's also the weird part that some things are basically no longer news if they take a couple days to confirm, which creates a terrible race to the bottom.

 

When I was running a high school sports Web site in Houston about 10 years ago, a local fall baseball organization had its championship game on a Saturday morning at Minute Maid Park. Two teams in our coverage area were in the game, but I did not see the need to staff it because it came after one long night of football coverage and ahead of another. I listened to some of the game from home and wrote up about six grafs.
By Monday morning, the owner of the website that provided a broadcast stream of the game threatened to sue our site because of lack of attribution. He expected us to include his site as a "source" ... in fact, the title of his email was "SOURCE???". I told him he was owed no attribution. It was a game and not owned by any one outlet that carried it. The guy was (and, no doubt, still is) extremely possessive of anything he covers and quite hard to get along with at all, let alone work with.
To the original point ... I always properly attribute a quote given to another outlet if I have to use one, which preferably is rare. Otherwise, I never would pass off someone else's original research as my own. That's where I draw the line, personally.

 

I stopped worrying about using radio broadcasts to fill out my round-up with some play-by-play I caught while listening in the car going between games when I realized the local radio station was using my stories word-for-word to do their morning sports update.