Share/E-mail This Story

Email This



Pointless Journalist Fight: Who Gets Credit For Tweeting A Story First?

from the get-over-yourselves dept

One thing I always find particularly silly in the mainstream media is when they claim "exclusive" on a story. News is not "ownable," and the second someone gets a story out, that news is out there and the facts are available to anyone else. So every time I see publications claim "exclusive!" it makes me laugh. It may be exclusive for a few seconds, at best. But, old school journalists seem to get really really picky about those things, as evidenced by this particularly stupid argument over who gets "credit" for a story. It seems that the NY Times and Reuters both had reporters working on the story, and the NYTimes tweeted the news out about 26 seconds before Reuters did -- but the Reuters reporter is still demanding credit -- first claiming (incorrectly) that he tweeted it first, but then noting (correctly) that they published first. The simple fact is that no one cares, other than a couple of journalists. No one keeps score, and no one owns the news. After all, if we have to go back to the "original" source, then wouldn't it be the person the story is actually about?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 12:54am

    I claim credit for first comment.

    Its Mine I tells ya.

    Mine Mine Mine Mine MINE!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 12:54am

    Ownerable news

    There's one kind of news that's ownerable - news created from the void to amuze reader. It doesn't base on fact and therefore author certainly qualifies to hold the copyright to the story.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 12:59am

    Of course journalists can own an exclusive.
    No one would have ever heard about Watergate without Woodward and Bernstein. Without investigative journalists like them, stories wouldn't exist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 1:06am

    Re:

    This "story' was not something they investigated, in fact it was about a Disney Exec stepping down, probably something that the Board (and maybe Stock Exchange/SEC) knew before Reporters.

    The story was a "fact" that was going to be public knowledge whether it was reported on or not (Disney is a Public Company)

    So they don't 'own' the story. It's not exclusive, since it is a fact, and the story would of existed (since they are not a part of it) whether they wrote about it or not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Josef Anvil (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 1:12am

    Re:

    You WROTE the first comment, but I THOUGHT about writing the first comment FIRST.

    So actually its MINE.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 1:26am

    Re: Re:

    but... but...

    mommy!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Dionaea (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 1:31am

    Re: Re:

    Thanks for telling, I was wondering about this. If it's not even something they had to work for that makes the story all the more ridiculous.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    jakerome (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 2:02am

    *dons flame-resistant suit*

    OK, here's the truth. And it applies even more strongly to that awful Politico story pertaining to CISPA, http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120425/13580618658/stupid-politics-as-usual-to-drive-cispa-narrat ive.shtml

    Most reporters aren't that smart. They aren't that clever. They can write well. But critical thinking skills are sorely lacking, but they have total confidence in their ability to examine an issue for minutes and understand just as well as experts who have studied the issue for years. They don't.

    Reporters are uniformly wrong in every story they write, I would guess 99% of newspaper stories contain at least one factual error of significance. The quotes are cherry picked to pick the pre-defined narrative determined by the writer within 5 minutes of crossing the story. There is no reflection, no reexamination. And given the general lack of critical thinking ability, the problem only escalates. They use the power of the pen & their strong writing ability to distort reality to fit their own biases.

    They are so often wrong, so many concerned with being first instead of write, and writing for their peers instead of the public. Of course, there are many good writers. But in print (and in many blogs), what passes for "journalism" is simply pasting together a few quotes and sprinkling in some analysis that exists solely in the writer's imagination. That two writers get into a pissing contest about who reprinted a press release faster tells you all you need to know.

    The web has exacerbated the issue, not so much because of the short attention span of the readers but because of the false belief of formerly reliable news outlets that every item of news must be updated every second.

    There is STILL great investigative journalism, maybe as much as ever. But the middle ground-- small investigative pieces, solidly researched news stories-- seem all but gone.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 2:03am

    Re:

    No one would have ever heard about Watergate without Woodward and Bernstein. Without investigative journalists like them, stories wouldn't exist.

    As it turned out a whole raft of people knew about the story (from the actual burglars right up to the president) and that was sort of the point.

    Woodward and Bernstein certainly did the public a great favour by bringing it into the public domain but they didn't create the story.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 2:13am

    Re: *dons flame-resistant suit*

    You are right - and this is nothing new - anyone who had first hand knowledge of a story that has appeared in the press will testify to just how inaccurate they are.

    This is not a trivial issue either. It ruins the lives of innocent people. A couple of years ago there was a very distreesing case in the Uk of a young woman who disappeared over the Christmas period and was found dead a few days later. The police - being systematic - made a thorough investigation of all the people close to her, including her landlord. The press latched onto this individual as a likely suspect and started running stories that painted him as some kind of weird monster figure. Most of the information they used had at best a little truth in it - and some was competely fabricated.

    A week or two later the police homed in on the real culprit but the damage was already done. Strangely the press never really went to town on the real killer like they had on this innocent bystander.

    The poor man has now had substantial compensation from the press - but he has had to change his appearance and his life has been wrecked. "Oddly" the press have not spent anything like as much newspaper real estate on apologising for their errors as they did on the original story.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 2:30am

    Re: Ownerable news

    So all tabloid news, then?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Boo Boo, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 2:32am

    He who can tap out his ' story ' fastest on his Twitter app gets the gold :) BlackBerry v iPhone v NoteBook v Android .
    Ready , steady, GO !

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 4:19am

    Re:

    If only journalists still held to the standard of investigative journalism as they existed back then, you may have a point. Sadly, most "journalism" nowadays is more likely to consist of repackaged press releases, gossip and reposted AP reports than any real journalism.

    We're no longer discussing investigative journalism, we're talking about who can tweet some barely-investigated "story" less than 30 seconds before the competition can. Woodward and Bernstein, these people are not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 4:25am

    Re:

    You can't own facts. That creates a very dangerous slippery slope that will eventually get someone killed.

    Just imagine that someone owned the exclusive rights to report on an impending natural disaster that had the potential to kill thousands. Now imagine that that someone cared more about milking this for money than they cared about saving people*. Yeah, you're in for a nice mess.


    * See war/natural disaster coverage to see what I mean

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Mesonoxian Eve (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 4:42am

    I would have been awesome if this article were titled with the useless EXCLUSIVE some sites believe is actually relevant.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 4:49am

    My daddy will beat yo daddy!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 5:35am

    "Woodward and Bernstein certainly did the public a great favour by bringing it into the public domain but they didn't create the story."

    Of course they created the story! You think that poor innocent Nixon and his people would have broken the law if Woodward and Bernstein hadn't reported about Watergate?

    Once they reported it, poor Nixon HAD to break into Watergate, just to show he was a tough guy who COULD do it. Can you imagine how disappointed Nixon’s supporters would have been if he hadn’t done it, and they realized how weak and scared of the law he was? Nixon couldn't let that happen!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 5:43am

    It always makes me LOL when I see Pirate Mike whining about stuff like this. Considering Mike has made his life's work to be just the idiotic repackaging of other people's work, of course he wants to downplay the importance of who broke a story first. And of course, when Mike does happen to have something that others don't, he tags it with things like "Breaking News." E.g., http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaking-news-feds-falsely-censor-popular-blog -over-year-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.shtml

    Now, Mike is trying to turn this whole thing into being about ownership. Ownership is a legal term of art, and it's not applicable here. All I see that they want is credit for having broken the story first. Of course, copycats like Mike don't care about that stuff. No reason for Pirate Mike to whine about it though. Just go about copying other people's hard work, Mike. No need to be such a whiny bitch about what other people do. God, you'll whine about ANYTHING.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 5:46am

    Re:

    You seem to be confused between 'a story' and a criminal event (break in).
    The journalists created the story, but the event had already happened.
    Many events happen that we don't hear about immediately, or even at all, and investigative journalists are responsible for making sure we hear about these events.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 5:49am

    Re: Ownerable news

    "ownerable" - heard here first, the next jerseyshore esque word to enter the vernacular.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 5:55am

    Re:

    LOL - that was a good one. Played just like the typical troll.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 6:01am

    lol news? media? i don't know what that is. unless you're talking about the reality tv shows on cnn, fox, and msnbc.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    BentFranklin (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 6:12am

    Re: Re: Ownerable news

    Perhaps "ownerous" is more apropos.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 6:32am

    Re:

    God, you'll whine about ANYTHING.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Lirodon, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 6:35am

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 6:57am

    Re:

    "Now, Mike is trying to turn this whole thing into being about ownership."

    Yes, Mike's doing this, not the news agencies arguing about it... :rollseyes: He blgos about a report of something other people are doing, and you still manage to turn it into a personal vendetta.

    "Just go about copying other people's hard work, Mike."

    Once again, I assume you have a citation for when he's done this?

    For someone complaining about whining, you sure do a lot of whining...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 7:12am

    Re: *dons flame-resistant suit*

    So?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 7:14am

    Who cares if he tweeted it first, I want to know who wrote in on a napkin first. Even better, who heard it first, and then snitched like a dirty rat.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 7:23am

    Re: Re:

    You give too much credit, Only the top "journalists" even bother to repackage, the vast majority just reprint what is handed to them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 7:29am

    Re: Re: *dons flame-resistant suit*

    I think this is important enough to give names & links for those outside of the UK who might be unfamiliar with the case.

    Basically, in their typical style, The Sun and other tabloids needed to run stories on a controversial murder. The murder of Joanna Yeates ticked all the usual boxes - she was young, white, middle-class, educated, photogenic and was found dead on Christmas Day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates

    Given all of this, they had to keep reporting on the case, as these people usually do, and latched on to Chris Jeffries, her landlord. He was arrested on suspicion of her murder but released on bail after questioning. He was later released from bail and no charged with any wrongdoing.

    However, the tabloids had a field day. They dragged him through the mud, making allegation after allegation, running front page stories with nothing but innuendo based on 2nd or 3rd-hand accounts of his personality. While they did eventuially apologise (at the Leveson Inquiry, so probably not something they're usually run in print - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/24/leveson-inquiry-sun-christopher-jefferies), the man's life was destroyed despite having ndone nothing wrong other than rent a flat to a girl who fell victim to a crime unrelted to him.

    This is far from the first time these papers have done such things, and sadly I doubt it will be the last. I can only hope that in the race to get things out "first" and apologise later, the sheen of respectability these tabloids seem to have disappears. Until there's an effective press complaints body that actually does something to deter such things, I doubt it, but hopefully the results of the Leveson Inquiry will make these people more accountable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveson_Inquiry

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 8:09am

    Re: Re:

    Ugh! How many times? AC's don't need citations! Posting something from an anonymous account is proof enough of its veracity. What is it with you people?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 8:10am

    Re: Re:

    Ugh! How many times? AC's don't need citations! Posting something from an anonymous account is proof enough of its veracity. What is it with you people?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 10:47am

    Re:

    No one would have ever heard about Watergate without Woodward and Bernstein


    But the moment that they published the story it was no longer "exclusive".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 10:51am

    Re: Re: *dons flame-resistant suit*

    Anyone who had first hand knowledge of a story that has appeared in the press will testify to just how inaccurate they are


    I can vouch for that. I've been on the "inside" of three or four major stories reported in highly respected, award-winning newspapers. None of the stories were controversial or politically sensitive.

    All of them were so riddled with errors in even basic facts that they opened my eyes and made me realize that news reporting simply cannot be blindly trusted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 10:51am

    Re:

    This is a discussion site, not a news site. Mike brings up news pieces that interest and are relevant to him or the readers. He gives his views on things, and then... we discuss! Amazing how that works, isn't it? You're not even Statler or Waldorf, though. You're the annoying infant in the back that won't stop crying. Mama needs to give you a bottle and tuck you in far away from the adults.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Jose_X, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 12:25pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Cheer up.

    A) The first to publish gets 12,370 years of monopoly exclusion + 4 lifetimes extra for each sperm or egg cell in his/her body at application time. Next time, please let Mr. Anvil enjoy his 15th minute.

    B) Mike's electronic order dispatcher did not screw you order.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 1:10pm

    Re: Re:

    "Waah! Someone's opinions are different to mine! Waaah! They must be stupid or evil! ! Waaah!!!1"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 6:52pm

    Re:

    Calling those reality is stretching it a bit

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 8:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Ownerable news

    I thought I created that word to claim ownership of this story. Sorry it I didn't make it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This