And Another One: CNN Found 'Ripping Off' Others' Reporting
from the this-happens-all-the-time dept
Well, here we go again...
If you're a reader of Reason, you're probably well aware of the massive amount of work that writer Radley Balko has put into investigating Steven Hayne, a controversial Mississippi medical examiner, whose testimony and autopsy practices were called into serious question by Balko's research and reporting. Balko has spent years exposing Hayne (and some of his colleagues) for practices that, if true, are abhorrent. Balko's investigative research and reporting has been instrumental in overturning questionable verdicts. If you're looking into Steven Hayne, there's simply no way you can avoid Balko's reporting and research on the subject.
And, it appears that CNN didn't avoid Balko's research and reporting either, in its own reporting on Hayne, as a part of Anderson Cooper 360. Much of what was done by CNN appears to have come straight from Balko's research -- and sources quoted by CNN told Balko that CNN claims it found them via his articles. But, does CNN credit Balko for any of it? Nope. Not at all.
Because, you see, it's only "ripping off" when it's the "alternative media" properly citing the mainstream press... not when the mainstream press doesn't credit the alternative media at all.
As Tim Lee notes, there's nothing wrong with what CNN did, but it does show how silly it is to claim that it's these other sites or "parasitic aggregators" that "rip off" the mainstream press, when the mainstream media has been doing the same thing for ages -- and continues to do it without any qualms whatsoever. Tim notes:
Now this isn't illegal. Nor should it be. But it is rather unprofessional. And I think it's a good illustration of what's wrong with the standard story about large media organizations producing the news and blogs cutting and pasting. Not only does the sharing goes in both directions, but I think people have a skewed perception of which direction is more common precisely because blogs do a better job of crediting their sources. When Gawker builds on a Washington Post story, they don't try to pretend it was original reporting; they give credit, provide a link, and they'll often just quote the original story rather than re-interviewing all the same sources. So it's obvious who's copying whom. In contrast, when a mainstream media outlet like CNN decides to build on the reporting of an online source, they do a lot of extra (and possibly unnecessary) work to avoid giving credit. One consequence is that only in really blatant cases (like this one) does anyone catch them.Indeed. But whereas the story from the Washington Post reporter kicked up a huge discussion on ethics of reporting, who wants to bet that this one dies a quiet death without the mainstream media mentioning it at all?
There's a clear double standard here. If it's wrong for a blogger to build a story on a mainstream media story with attribution and a link, it's even more wrong for a mainstream media outlet to build on a blogger's story without a word of credit. CNN owes Radley a prominent link to his past work. And an apology.