You may recall our earlier post this week regarding NYT's Saturday item on Jim Romenesko's salary and blogger Mediacrity's displeasure at seeing that piece one week after its own Romenesko salary item (inspired by FishbowlDC's Romenesko item) had been posted - sans credit. Mediacrity immediately fired off a letter to the Times requesting a correction; the Times wrote back asking Mediacrity to provide a name and then "we will consider running a correction." Sounds like a reasonable request, especially on matters of sourcing, but Mediacrity thought that such correction ought not be contingent on providing any such info, seeing as, in Mediacrity's view, the rip-off was clear and egregious.

Things got huffy fast ("Yes, yours is an arrogant newspaper. But it is not often that the arrogance is quite so 'in your face'... The fact that my blog is anonymous is not a license to steal for the New York Times"). Fuming, Mediacrity copied NYT Ombudsman Barney Calame.

Today, the response: Calame writes that the NYT item had "specifically noted that the dollar amount had already been under discussion on Mediacrity" and said that the NYT's Romenesko salary information "had been independently obtained and confirmed." While props are lovely, it's clear that Mediacrity wants credit. Fair enough; after all, the item originated with Mediacrity, not the Times. After explaining why they need to have an actual person to hold accountable for Mediacrity assertions, Calame offers to "consider a Mediacrity correction request that supports the exclusivity claim and includes the name and phone number of a person who represents Mediacrity."

Sounds reasonble, but Mediacrity scoffs at Calame's reply, expressing disbelief that NYT writer Ken Belson "just happened to be browsing through the 150 million or so pages of public filings on Guidestar.com." It's fun when blogs get strident, although as many ex-boyfriends have pointed out, the more you rant the less seriously your legitimate complaints are taken. Mediacrity promises an update, so who knows what will happen? But one thing we can be sure about: we won't be reading about this on Romenesko.

Miracle on 43rd Street! Calame Clears Everything Up [Mediacrity]
The blogs leading the blogsMSM [FishbowlNY]

UPDATE: Mediacrity writes to Fishbowl, saying that the real issue here is standing up for anonymous blogs. The Times ought not have the right to plunder them wantonly, and if they're busted for it and a change is demanded, that change ought not be contingent on the violated blogger having to surrender his/her anonymity. Which is a point that I had not considered, I confess, and it's a good one. (Amazing how everything these days is coming back to anonymous sources). In any case, we agree, MSM poaching from blogs is unconscionable and, to paraphrase Willy Loman, attribution must be paid. A very balanced assessment of the matter may be found here; I found it by randomly browsing through 150 million or so pages of blogs. Just kidding, it's via Mediacrity here.