Posted - 8/14/2012 9:45:32 AM | show profile | flag this post
I did not think this was a matter of opinion: On July 10 I published an article (albeit lower Circulation) about a local public figure receiving preferential treatment by the local judiciary. I obtained booking records and documented her failures to follow instructions and court orders. These records were not found in the police logs, but in the Open- Jail file.
My article was the first to reveal the 'breaking' news aspect of my 'scoop'. (five and six year-old charges allowed to grow cold due to crony favoritism).
On Aug. 11, four week later, my city's larger publication had my story angle and information on their front page. They claimed the story as a result of their investigation. My story was the top and only link when searching for this subject on google and other search engines.
I E-mailed the editor asking why I got no credit and he said the story was one already in progress. The subject is a public figure, but the info for story took sleuthing.
My question: does not professional standards require (or courtesy) that the paper write, when doing their own stories "as first reported in the "Dalery blah" (my publication) now that they know they did not report it first...???
Posted - 8/14/2012 1:01:46 PM | show profile | flag this post
I'd make a bunch of noise. Scream loud enough and you'll get somebody fired. Look what just happened the other day with Farheed Z at Newweek. and that other bozo who made up Bob Dylan quotes.
Who hates that paper? Who wants to humiliate them. They always have enemies. go find them. Call them on it. Demand satisfaction. make those salaried f-wads lose their jobs. Go for it. Get nasty.
Posted - 8/14/2012 2:32:53 PM | show profile | flag this post
Yeah, they should have cited your original reporting. I don't know if there are any formal industry guidelines from any established journalism groups on the practice, though. And publications are becoming more and more lax (lots of bloggers complain about newspaper reporters ripping them off without crediting them).
Posted - 8/14/2012 2:51:08 PM | show profile | flag this post
No one is going to lose their job over this. It's not like making up quotes, where someone obviously did something wrong.
This is a debate about the subjective ethics of when and whether one publication should cite another publication that reported a news item first. I doubt you'll find many people outside of media and academics who are going to get worked up by it.
--I'd make a bunch of noise. Scream loud enough and you'll get somebody fired. Look what just happened the other day with Farheed Z at Newweek. and that other bozo who made up Bob Dylan quotes.
Who hates that paper? Who wants to humiliate them. They always have enemies. go find them. Call them on it. Demand satisfaction. make those salaried f-wads lose their jobs. Go for it. Get nasty.==
Posted - 8/14/2012 5:04:11 PM | show profile | flag this post
Make noise anyway, make them look like the jerks they are.
Posted - 8/14/2012 8:10:00 PM | show profile | flag this post
If the OP wants to make noise, that's fine. I would just say he shouldn't throw around inflammatory words like "plagiarism" when he is using them incorrectly.(Based on what he wrote there is no issue of plagiarism.)
I also would make sure he firmly understands what he is protesting, and not bring up stuff like journalists making up quotes, which is unrelated to the issue at hand.
Posted - 8/15/2012 9:36:29 AM | show profile | flag this post
This is a matter of public record, the larger paper is citing sources that aren't exclusive to you, and they have no duty to cite your work. It would be nice if they did, but so what?
Plus, you have no way of knowing they weren't on to the story well before you were -- if you can get the idea, so can someone else working the same beat in the same town. Your story most likely spurred them to make it a priority.
This is always the story with competing media, with a larger publication following the smaller one and trying to make the story their own. You put the story out in public, and once it breaks this is what happens. I'm surprised the local TV station hasn't called and asked for your sources.
They are the competition. It's a business. If you don't have proprietary or exclusive info, it's all up for grabs. You broke the story, that's your job. If you want credit, go break another one, follow up relentlessly, get the wrong-doer sent to jail and collect your Pulitzer Prize.
Good job, but there's no crying in baseball. Be a pro and get back to work.
Posted - 8/17/2012 4:19:28 AM | show profile | flag this post
How about I paste 2 links: mine & theirs. A better view
My story (Examiner.com) published July 10th 2012. Headline reads : "Palm Springs murder suspect, on bail, has new arrests". The link:
Desert Sun Story (largest local newspaper) published this story on August 4th 2012. Their headline reads "Accused killer ran free for years: Out on bail, prosecutors say Candace Duran racked up new violations as murder case languished" The link:
Maybe I should have not used the phrase plagiarism and I do understand the story was reported by documents in the public domain, but I see it as a matter my research and story that they are taking credit for in their investigation.
Many papers and newscasts will credit a story with "as first reported in...." to give the other outlet due credit. Me.
Thanks for the feed back.
Posted - 8/17/2012 12:53:30 PM | show profile | flag this post
I read both stories.
I think it's likely that they got the original idea from your piece. In that case it would have been nice to credit your original report, but I wouldn't say it was surprising that they didn't.
However, they certainly dug deeper into the story and provided a lot more details. So it's also conceivable that the editor's explanation was right: "We were working on this pIece at the same time, but you just published first because we were gathering more details and we see no reason to cite you."
Either way, I think Brian is right. At this point, you're not going to get any satisfaction. The newspaper has taken its position and I have a hard time seeing who else you could complain to who would care.
Posted - 8/17/2012 1:58:30 PM | show profile | flag this post
Also, after reading your story, I am puzzled why your original post said:
--My article was the first to reveal the 'breaking' news aspect of my 'scoop'. (five and six year-old charges allowed to grow cold due to crony favoritism).--
There was nothing in your story about this stuff. As far as I can see, the only new thing you reported was that a woman who has been out on bail on murder charges for 5 years was arrested on new charges 3 times in the last few months.
There is no mention about the early charges, and no suggestion of crony favoritisim. (Other than you mentioning the tribe's political contributions, which honestly in the context of your story seemed like a very odd thing to mention. If you are trying to imply the charges were squashed because of the tribe's political influence, you need to say that much more clearly and have some substantiation for it).
Posted - 8/17/2012 3:27:22 PM | show profile | flag this post
Truly you took the time to deliver an honest assessment. I will consider the issue mute now, but consider this aspect - as written by the Editor of the Desert Sun a few days after their headline in an editorial giving themselves self congratulations:
"...among the most well-read Desert Sun stories this summer." Desert Sun 8/6/12 &
"Desert Sun's team consists of seasoned journalists who dig deep to uncover stories." Desert Sun 8/6/12.
I agree the Desert Sun did a more in-depth profile of this case, but what made the story so popular, so commented on, talked about and widely picked up by other medias in this market is not that the suspect remained free on bail, while the murder trial drags on at a snail's pace through the courts, but that she has remained free on bail IN LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL AND SEPARATE FELONY ARRESTS in addition to the original 2007 charge.
The issue is special treatment...(which IMO is given an explanation in my article) and in the past nobody cared to give this story much ink. It was 'Lil Ole Me' that dug up the new and recent additional arrests which made the story take-off. The other arrests of this suspect were not reported by anyone in any articles except by moi. My piece did receive notice based on the feed back. Notice the angle of the Indians being the 10th largest special interest group in the nation? The newspaper needs them for advertising dollars.
And look: here is what they published first when they could no longer sit on the story:
No mention of what made this story fly (Bails not revoked, suspect not being served justice, special treatment).
Plagiarism is partially defined as "...use of others' ideas or words (published or unpublished) without
attribution or permission and presenting them as new and
original rather than derived from an existing source."
All I feel entitled to is the line "as first reported in Examiner.com". I did not even care if my name was used. Now, a small blurb under 'corrections' would do. Won't happen.
I like the comment to stop crying about it and get back to work. Thanks to all who shared.
But I felt, still slightly do, cheated. I was working for months on this; matching casino Indian campaign contributions to local elected Judges and DAs (political contribution disclosures are by law to be made public, but it is still impossible to match faces with finances). The suspect originally just a clue to bigger things, but finding those arrests took my time investigating....I doubt the Desert Sun was aware of the previous arrests, and if they were, why did they not go to print with it earlier?
I'm glad my sense of injustice could be shared here.
Posted - 8/17/2012 3:51:20 PM | show profile | flag this post
That last article I pasted from the Desert Sun 7/31, the one with first mention of arrest (sans history of stacking up felonies while free on bail) received virtually no comments. The article mentioning the new felonies made the story locally viral. S'why I believe my earlier work should have been cited. I was first to publish, yet the paper claims to have uncovered the same facts four weeks after me.
Their reasoning is suspect.
(Further pursuit judges me a drag dog looking for sob sisters to feed my crying cats, ugh.)
Posted - 8/17/2012 4:05:26 PM | show profile | flag this post
It looks like the Desert Sun reporter did an 8-13 news story based on the judge revoking the woman’s bail that day for failure to show up at trial. That could have been the impetus for her investigating the story. So it’s conceivable to me that the reporter might have gotten going on her investigation on 8-13, and she might not even have been aware of the story you did three days earlier. It certainly does give more credence to the editor’s explanation than I originally thought.
Also, I think the case you're making for cronyism is pretty weak. It's not surprising that the Indian casino people contribute lots of money to politicians, including to judges and DAs. It's pretty lazy to simply assume that the Indians pulled strings for this woman.
If you're going to make that allegation (and you sure didn't make it clearly in your story as you are in this thread), you need to do more legwork to connect the dots.
It's very possible this is simply a story about an incompetent court system rather than favoritism. The Desert Sun story provided an interesting quote that 20 percent of murder suspects on trial are arrested for other things.
Posted - 8/17/2012 4:14:07 PM | show profile | flag this post
By the way, I applaud the legwork you did adding up all the campaign contributions. But for the life of me, if you went to all that trouble I don't understand why you didn't pick up the phone and ask people questions about it. I mean, why didn't you call the DA and ask why this woman's bail had not been revoked?
Posted - 8/17/2012 4:19:06 PM | show profile | flag this post
One last thing: You said you matched campaign contributions to specific judges and DAs. But none of that is in your story. The only campaign contribution you mention is from the Center for Responsive Politics.
I am not seeing months of work in the story you produced, so I am a little puzzled about what you actually found other than the three arrests in the public database.
Posted - 8/17/2012 7:25:53 PM | show profile | flag this post
3 weeks-not days. A matter of weeks dr....not days
The local Agua Caliente spend a lot of bread making political friends. $21 million in 2008 alone (the last time they themselves provided a number). The suspect is Caliente, the tribe is Caliente, the Judges and DAs recieve support from the Caliente....how much? The Aguas are not following disclosure guidelines because they are exempt as a 'sovereign' nation. The campaign disclosures come in piece by piece, from web site to another....there is no bottom line to see exactly how much a DA or Judge received from the casino Indians. The Agua Caliente are a tight tribe of roughly 350 (rolls are private as are income). Riverside County is one of the toughest counties to be convicted in. Of course, you say there is no proof of Aguas gaining political figures...as if money buys nothing...and this suspect, be honest, in what jurisdiction would 9 felonies on multiple counts allow someone, someone on 1 mil bail for murder, to remain free all this time? No revocation....if you knew this county, our politicos, you would not question.....
......I just wanted credit....the story was being kept buried..I unearthed it. I did. I've been thanked by friends of the victim's family. People say my story is the only one to tell the truth-----yet, I stayed away from accusations. Just re-inforced what the original DA said in court.....Access to tribal funds and influence. It means a lot.
Indians bore me now.
Posted - 8/17/2012 7:47:40 PM | show profile | flag this post
I am a little puzzled what credit you're looking for.
The Desert Sun story didn't make any mention of the tribe's political contributions, and they didn't insinuate, as you are, that the tribe used political connections to keep her bail from being revoked. So I don't see why you would expect them to credit you for all that stuff they didn't mention.
I could have seen them saying: "This first came to light on July 10 when YOUR PAPER published information from a publically available database that she had been arrested three times in the last few months but our investigation found a much longer and biggest history of this occuring."
Is that basically the credit you wanted? I could see that. I don't understand why you expect another credit to credit you about the political insinuations when they didn't mention them.
Posted - 8/18/2012 10:39:49 AM | show profile | flag this post
Drop it. You are looking like an amateur and a whiner.
You put a story out in public -- that's your job. People are reacting, including other publications, which is good and validates your effort.
If you don't want other people reading, thinking and acting on your stories, get another job and go write in your diary.
Take the time and effort you are putting into nursing this pathetic grudge into doing another good story. Right now, you look like a loser who thinks he'll never have another good story in the rest of his life. But, as Dribble points out, sounds like you've already got another good one cooking on the political donations. Go nail that one down -- and don't bitch when other people follow you on that one, either.
Posted - 8/18/2012 11:24:18 AM | show profile | flag this post
The rub is "our investigation found.."...I don't exist?
"I could have seen them saying: "This first came to light on July 10 when YOUR PAPER published information from a publically available database". I thought after publishing I would see something.
I would have been satisfied if the paper wrote "as first reported in an online article...." rather then what I read in their article "our investigation discovered the suspect has been arrested for multiple felonies...". Forget about the angles, or better writing; I just think they should not have taken credit as having been the first to report the suspects post bail run-ins. Why? Because they were not the first.
Nothing more than that....as to what lies underneath the story that is another matter and I did not mean to (well I did) confuse the issue. Even if they were completely unaware of my article (hard to believe if the reporters used the internet) after hearing about the article they are still following up this story with "as the Desert Sun first reported..." . This is purposely omitting an attribution, IMO. The paper did not unearth anything compelling that I did not unearth first....but I did not bother with the 'moving violations'...they report 18 charges (11 traffic citations)...I kept it to the felonies and the DUI.|
The desert sun also does not mention political favors as a possible reason why she has remained free and kept her murder trial at bay. I merely brought it for consideration, but it is, of course, true. Our elected leaders always say the most gushing things about the Agua Caliente..and Agua Calientes keeps their troubled ones away from 'foreign justice'. Would'nt you? Hope this clarifies my position some.
Posted - 8/18/2012 12:07:57 PM | show profile | flag this post
Yeah, I know....So I bitched and whine...
....writing hard copy not my practice...air copy keeps me disciplined.... never cared before until I saw my crap in black & white. So good by Examiner.com.....circulation code 4.
(FYI, been there done that and saw it around the corner...but if one needs to cry-better here than to another's face)
Posted - 8/18/2012 4:13:14 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** My question: does not professional standards require (or courtesy) that the paper write, when doing their own stories "as first reported in the "Dalery blah" (my publication) now that they know they did not report it first...??? ***
The answer: No.
The professional standard is to never repeat what another reporter did, but to re-report it to verify it.
Ironically, Examiner.com is famous for not doing this.
Posted - 8/18/2012 4:43:20 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** The desert sun also does not mention political favors as a possible reason why she has remained free and kept her murder trial at bay. I merely brought it for consideration, but it is, of course, true. Our elected leaders always say the most gushing things about the Agua Caliente..and Agua Calientes keeps their troubled ones away from 'foreign justice'. Would'nt you? Hope this clarifies my position some. ***
It's "true" when there is substantiation of it. When it's insinuation, it's unpublishable.
The Agua Calientes are everybody's tribe to love to hate in Palm Springs -- love the casino with the loose slots, love the contributions to the library, museums and schools, and hate leasing the land under your house from the tribe.
Posted - 8/19/2012 2:58:53 AM | show profile | flag this post
Actually, they never wrote this in their story:
--rather then what I read in their article "our investigation discovered the suspect has been arrested for multiple felonies...".--
They said: "The Desert Sun reviewed dozens of court files and jail records and interviewed attorneys and police who had contact with Duran."
Which I am sure they did.
Bottom line: You are looking for credit in the wrong place if you expect a competing newspaper to pat you on the back and source you for non-proprietary information. Even if your story was the impetus for them to do their own reporting, they don't need to credit you.
Basically, a newspaper will only cite a competing newspaper if they have absolutely have to because the newspaper found some piece of information that can't be sourced in any other way. Since the Desert Sun can go to the same original records that you did, they don't need to cite you. And I am sure they have no trouble justifying that to themselves because of all the additional information they found out.
Posted - 8/19/2012 11:51:02 AM | show profile | flag this post
Look: You got your answer, sorry that you don't like it.
Why are you still here -- to make yourself look like an obstinate, immature whiner instead of just a regular whiner?
Get back to work.
Posted - 9/17/2012 2:57:03 AM | show profile | flag this post
I feel ripped off by publication's plagiarism
You cannot copy right an idea. You can only copyright the specific execution of an idea.
Write it a hundred times. Learn it. Live it. Don't take it personally. Ideas are out there everywhere, and people are likely to get the same ideas all the time.
If their story is significantly different than yours, even if they got the idea from reading your Examiner piece, it's NOT plagiarism.
Be happy that they were inspired by your writing to take it the net mile. Be proud of that, but don't go picking a plagiarism fight. They are under no obligation, and it'll just make you look bush league in a market that's probably very small.
Save the copyright fight for a time when you really have a case.