News-Record.com

Even when you confirm the information and write your story, do you have any guidlines for writing "As first reported on..." or "The issue first came to light on..." ?

Roch:

(Caution, this turned into a pretty long reply and ends up with a few questions of my own.)

I ain't JR, so I won't speak to matters of policy. But I can give you some examples that might illustrate the subject.

Back five years ago when I was working in the High Point bureau, I covered business. The High Point paper at the time had a pretty good business reporter of their own (who now works for Winston-Salem). There for a while, we had a pretty good tit-for-tat going, scooping each other on different stories. I'd get out ahead on a new hotel being built; he'd get the scoop on a new furniture company opening a showroom...so it went.

And if something was really a "scoop," a piece of information we (or they) were sorry wasn't in the paper, one of us would find ourselves with the sorry task of following the other's story.

In all the follows that he wrote and I wrote, the number of times that a phrase like "As first reported in the ..." (take your pick, N+R or HPE) was exactly zero. The reason: we'd go out, do our own reporting, with any luck advance the story in some way (bring new information or context to the table). The other paper had the story first, but by damned we were going to it better.

You can see some of the same stuff go on today between the New York Times and Washington Post on national/Washington stories, and between the Charlotte and Raleigh papers (and to a much lesser extent, us) going on state coverage. Rarely, unless the other source has some bit of information that can't be confirmed by others, will you see a line such as "as first reported by ..." Most often you see something like that when a publication needs to lay out the chronology of something and there's no way around it. (Article A leads to inquiry B leads to press conference C leads to resignation D ...)

This is the way it has been in the business since I can remember and a lot longer than that if the grey-beards who brought me up weren't fibbing when I was still wet behind the ears.

I would expect (and try to do this myself) that if we blog about a story that began elsewhere or on another blog, we'd link to it, credit it, etc...

What you're talking about with blogs is not a whole lot different. A story is published on another source. Someone at the N+R chases it and does their own reporting and produces a story.

So here's the question I have about your question - asked very much in the context of a newspaper that's changing a lot about the way we do things - why should we change decades/centuries of journalistic practice in the case of blogs? If bloggers truly want to be treated with the same respect/credence of other news sources, is there any reason that the N+R or any newspaper should handle them differently than other main stream media outlets? If we treat blog entries differently from other MSM, doesn't that imply a double standard that some bloggers have railed against? Or, in the alternative, is there some reason for us to change our practice with respect to all publications?

Let me finish up by saying that I am someone who has listened to and seen echoes of his reporting used by others more times than I care to think about, so I empathize with the complaints. But I long ago learned that I ain't in the business for the money or the glory, which are both in short supply...which should sound familiar to 99.9 percent of bloggers.

Hi Mark, you explain the newspaper guy point of view well -- and it's valid. However, I wonder if this isn't a test of the N&R's commitment to open source journalism. I'm not trying to use the paper's (can we even use that word anymore) new ideas against it -- I genuinely wonder.

There's a word that Ed Cone has used, which escapes me at the moment, to describe how stories on blogs develop by building upon each other. Someone starts the ball rolling, the next guy adds a little more to it and so on. Is the N&R willing to adopt that sensibility not only online but in print as well?

I see it not just as a matter of fairness or giving credit where credit is due, because I think the old way is legitimately defensible, in an old paradigm. What I see, though, is an opportunity for the "paper" to give greater insight into how our community is having conversations. A story that includes the roots of how, when and where the information started bubbling to the surface may be more complete and informative than a story that simply begins at its own square one -- and more in the spirit of new journalism. Does that make any sense?

The things N&R has gotten off my blog were varified. The transfer liast...how much more do you need...Brady and Loyjko were totally MIA and the way the city responded to my e mails let that be known. Sorry John..the stuff u got from me was varified. Confirmed.

1. Viagra. I had it first. Hogg even noted it. Townsend did as well. The story you had gave more information. The N&R took my 24 hour summary (Which you could not get) about Viagra and did a little story. It was not an exclusive and you gave me credit. It was verified.

2. Police transfer list. John, where was that unverified? Townsend saw it and asked some questions about Hinson being transferred. The answers he got from the city amounted to zero. I asked you why was that an exclusive and you said that because the N&R had added things like Hinson’s rank and pay that it was different that mine. You got it from me first. It was verified on my blog and you called it an exclusive and you did not give me a lick of acknowledgement. What I see is you trying to present the Hinson stuff as all you when it was not. The reason you gave me credit for Viagra was because it was a small short cute story. The Hinson transfer was a wee bit hotter, so with a little added unnecessary facts, your N&R called it an exclusive and does not mention me. Interesting. John you added stuff to Viagra as well. Both were verified. I got mention in one. The smaller one.

3. Brady and Loyjko. That was not an exclusive. I had the information and had even began asking simple questions about each officer. The way the city responded all but verified it. Believe me when I tell you there were some long faces and hurried movements after I asked about the FIRST two cops missing. Within hours of me asking those questions every council person was called and notified of the changes becoming public knowledge. They actually met about it later that same day. My name was brought up as a person that needed to be interviewed by the outside group. An investigation was launched to try to find leaks in the city.

Then here comes the N&R with another exclusive days after I have already written about it. It was fact when I had it out. You simply added more little tid bits…this time it was the contract with the outside investigators. Wow. What breaking news. You had no idea of a lie detector test and asked about it and used it in the article. Nice exclusive. I just really see that if it is big or hott and you get it off of my blog your policy is to paint it as you did it all alone.

Roch - it makes sense ... to a point. And please bear in mind, I could be dead wrong about all this, but...

I'm thinking about what we know about newspaper readers as a general audience vs. those that read blogs and what not.

While at least some of the folks reading the paper edition will some of the time spend a lot of time with an in-depth story and - rarely - read it to the end, we know farm many people on far more stories are scanning. They want the bullet, to get the point, and to move on. I'm not sure the information you're talking about, that type of story (or product, if you want to speak more generally), is going to be of value to the average newspaper reader.

And, at least for the time being, when I write for the newspaper I have to think of a mass audience. That reader, in my mind, places a priority on knowing what's going on and how it affects them vs. knowing how that story developed.

Conversely, we're able to add depth and layers online, to engage readers like you who want the story behind the story, to do the linking, crediting, etc... that makes the online medium so exciting. The equation for me comes down to this: What will the user/subscriber (we still have some of those!) to one product be interested in vs. the reader/subscriber to another product...or more bluntly: does the audience in question care?

All that said, I could see us doing things that would get at what you're talking about. For larger stories, might it make sense to do a small sidebar or fastfax box that talks about the story's development? Or might we start a column (not unlike JR's Sunday column) that talks about how stories develop and the decisions we make? Yes, maybe, possibly.

But I'm just a grunt...so you might want to see what JR has to say if he ways in here.

When I cited your story on the berm, I was not trying to bust your chops. I was just blowing my own horn and trying to educate and recruit more readers. The point of it was like you said last week, John "if you're not reading Hogg's Blog - and why aren't you?"

The points you made in your post have been clear to me since it first came up with our cross reporting on Aycock Middle's uniforms - I am a 'stringer' and/or a 'tipster' for the media. That's fine by me. I know the rules and choose to play anyway.

So, in that vien, you might want to send someone over and see how the uniform policy is going at Aycock. The short answer is - not so good. the kids have learned how to 'sag' in chinos, and my 6th grader wears a 'Columbia' logod sweater every day to school - just to keep up with the 'North Face' crowd.

But you didn't hear it from me.

I know you weren't, David. You beat us on that one fair and square, and when I read it, passed it to our sports department to follow. Still don't know why it took us so long.

Roch, you ask great questions and I don't know the answers to them yet. I'll need to think and talk about them. I can see it getting complicated and, possibly confusing. For instance, David W. has been writing about architecture and neighbors and downtown development for some time. Marta decides to pull all the downtown condos together for a story. Does she credit David? What if she had the idea independently; what if she never read A Little Urbanity? But he would think that she got the idea from him. (Not saying that happens because, as with Hogg's Blog, we all read Wharton.)

What if we hear the information at the same time as a blogger does. But because of our publishing schedule or our desire to develop the story further, we publish after the blogger does. Do we credit the blogger because they were first to publish, even if they weren't the first to get the info?

Of course, complicated and confusing are not reasons for not doing.

Thanks for the feedback and for giving me more to thinks about.

Not being a "newspaper guy," I'm not equipped for this particular contest. Still, every time I hear my 5-year-old (or 7-year-old)complain "I had it FIRST," it suggests the direct opposite.
Invariably, the one howling loudest only wishes to have had it first, then begins concocting wild stories about how the rival stole it away or got it by unfair means. Of course, this only applies to Yugio cards, not falling staircases or secret police, to coin a phrase.
I'd love to stay and chat, but I hear my children fighting...

I wasn't trying to bust the N&R's (or Marta's) chops, either, though the similarities between some of what we'd both written and photographed seemed striking to me.

My thinking was more in the way of "what would it hurt the N&R to link me," especially if what I wrote was relevant and added to your story?

I know you weren't, David. I must have sounded defensive in the post, and I didn't intend to because I'm not. I'm thinking through the questions you guys are raising.

Lorraine, you found "newspaper guy" to be archaic? A relic from the past? Incompatible with modern sensibilities? Good -- part of my point.

I think Lorraine may be referring to the fact she's not a guy.

Yeah, but if I were, I'd kick all your butts. Except John's, I mean...

Yes, Mark. Exactly.

Lorraine, you already do kick butt.

Thanks, this is an interesting issue.

My opinion:
Yes, in the paper, where space and reader attention is limited, it makes sense not to waste the space and attention on "as first reported by" info.
But the stories are online too, and the online version could easily provide this info, either via a link or via an "about this story" box at the bottom.

> why should we change decades/centuries of journalistic practice ...?

In new circumstances, question old traditions; their original purpose may no longer apply.

(insert the "But we always cut off the turkey's lower legs before roasting it" fable here)