To narc? Or not to narc?

So if we go by the chart, the only thing the freelancer in question (or newspaper) did wrong was put a dateline on the story? Do everything exactly the same without a dateline and it's OK?

 

It depends on how he attributed quotes. If there was a "The Associated Press" contributing line or he used "told reporters" for televised news conferences or "told ESPN/Comcast/etc." for postgame on-court interviews, then yes. By the readers, he was fine.

By the people paying his check, it depends on whether they knew it or not.

 

According to the AP Stylebook definition, then no.

 

There's a weekly around these parts that routinely puts obscure datelines on stories when the reporters weren't there in person. I chuckle about it but I wouldn't bother writing a story or anything. I kind of guessed that their editorial policy or style on datelines diverged from APs or mine for whatever reason. Certainly could be the case with the writer in question here.

 

To be clear: They also use bylines, right?

 

But not with bylines.

 

What's the difference? Putting "Staff Report" on the byline implies a reporter was there.

 

Nobody outside of the business knows or cares what bylines and datelines signify.

 

This is absurd.

Sorry, I know I used this already, but it's like saying diners don't know the difference between USDA Prime, and USDA Choice or Select.

Some do, and it matters to them.

Every chef knows the difference though, and it's fraudulent to serve a lesser grade than you are advertising.

So, even if the public is not wholly concerned with, or informed of, a particular industry's specific ethical guidelines, that's not an excuse for violating them.

 

Except the beef is a real difference. The datelines are an arbitrary, made-up standard.

 

Made up, and agreed upon, by the industry.

If you watched the game on TV, just say so. Don't try to pretend you were there. And, really that should be the standard, actual transparency. The fact that this paper is putting an actual byline and dateline on the gamers is just doing further harm. They're not being honest with their readers.

 

Most of the things that get reporters and editors all hot and bothered, most readers either don't know or don't care to know.

If I was at the game. Watching from a media room, working off a quote sheet provided to me by the SID/media relations person how is that different filling from off site because of, say, technical issues, which happen way more often than people want to admit. Why do I need to explain that in my story?

Should it have an editor's note?
Because the reporter assigned to cover this game dropped his wifi hotspot in the toilet, he was forced to file from his hotel room or Dingleberry left his power cord at the office and filed from home because his laptop crapped out.