May 18, 2004

• I honestly don't see at first glance what you legitimately have to complain about. The writer seems to have attributed all the quotes to appropriate persons, and he was careful to phrase them in such a way so as not to lend the impression that the interviewees were speaking to USAToday specifically. Further, all the quotes were taken from a publicly available venue, and I don't think reporters are under any obligation to indicate in every article exactly where they got a quote from, as long as it's reliable. It would probably make for tedious reading if they did. Any griping seems similar to that of small town politicians who complain when their quotes from the public council chamber show up in the local paper. Anyone who's made it to grade school learns that if you aren't comfortable having your words repeated, don't say them in public or to more than one other person.
• I tend to agree with Nal. Perhaps you should be pleased your site warranted their attention?
• I should probably start off by saying my journalism experience is limited; I spent one year as a magazine writer before deciding that I prefer the kind of writing where you get to make stuff up. Having said that, I'm not convinced that you have grounds for complaint, for the reasons that Nal articulated--but I think this reporter's editor might have reason to complain. If I assigned a reporter to write a story, and he just did a quick Google cut-and-paste job, I'd be pretty reluctant to give him future assignments. If I had read the article without reading your post, I would have assumed the author had gone out and talked to all these people, and I bet his editor assumed just that. I suppose USA Today might have different standards, and it might depend on just what percentage of the article was cribbed directly from your site. As a side note, although I agree that you can't complain when your publically spoken words are repeated, you do have my sympathy. Small internet communities often have the feel of intimate private clubs, and it can be a disconcerting and upsetting experience when you realize they're not...
• hey roly, which quotations are the ones from your board? i was a reporter for usa today and one of my best friends is an editor there. i'd be glad to bring this to her attention if you could point out the specific quotes. in general, journalists never simply "lift" parts of online discussions. there are all kinds of ethical quandaries, primarily that we can't be sure that the person really exists. many newspapers won't tolerate the practice whatsoever. if i find someone who said something interesting online, i'll track them down and interview them myself. so in that way, i'm just using the bb as a sourcing venue. if this reporter did indeed steal quotes directly from the board and did not attribute correctly, that's wrong and improper.
• If I assigned a reporter to write a story, and he just did a quick Google cut-and-paste job, I'd be pretty reluctant to give him future assignments...I suppose USA Today might have different standards I wonder...I am not a USAToday reader, so I can't speak from experience, but I understand that the organization does not have a reputation for rigorous reporting. If this was produced by a staff writer, the editor might have been thrilled at the low number of man-hours the assignment required. USAToday might love internet chat-boards for quotes.
• Doh, SideDish beat me to the punch...and has a better idea what the heck she's talking about.
• I understand that the organization does not have a reputation for rigorous reporting yeah, american journalism has had several black eyes of late, haven't we? but (being the eternal optimist) i see the stephen glass/jayson blair/jack kelley fiascos as presenting us an opportunity to clean up the less-than-ethical among us -- and reminding us that even a tiny bit of laziness on our part is our downfall.
• Agreed with all - while you would (probably) only have a legal complaint of the quotes were taken out of context to the extent that they directly misrepresented the views of the person, you have every right to complain at an editorial level. The article is deliberately misleading. Just a note, though - somebody mentioned on the board about the possibility of having a "copyright belongs to the commenter" type notice (as we do here, and MeFi does). I'm uncertain as to whether or not this would have made any difference here - you can quote from a copywritten work, as long as it's attributed. Perhaps the innaccurate/misleading nature of the attribution would have given the commenters some recourse, but I don't know (especially as regards American copyright law). For example, for the book I've been researching for some time now, I've given the guy writing it several MeFi discussions relating to the issues - if he wants to use any quotes from that, I plan to go back and ask the permission of the specific commenters. This however is more of a courtesy than a necessity, I think (the discussions were fairly emotional, and cover some sensitive areas, so it seems wise, and only fair, to ask). Does anybody have greater expertise in this? More generally, I'd be interested to know how copyright on an international forum works in relation to the copyright laws of the countries of the commenters/quoters. For example, Creative Commons licenses are currently only set up for American law - is that right?
• Thanks everyone for the comments -- I feel I have a much better understanding of this issue now. I wasn't sure whether it was worth posting here on MoFi, but the discussion has turned out to be very educational. Sidedish: as far as I can tell all of the quotes in the story came off our discussion board and a sister mailing list.
• ALL of the quotations? and no one was contacted to verify anything? you're absolutely sure? the quotes were taken directly from your online BB? christ. i'll tell my editor pal about this. i'll also get the number of the paper's ombudsman, you definitely should contact that person.
• rolypolyman: is that a correct email addy in your profile?
• *crickets*
• *brood X cicadas*
• Just one thing that came to mind -- the article very clearly lists the full names, ages, hometowns and affiliations of the people quoted. It might be jumping the gun to say the quotes were directly lifted from the BBS because as far as I know most folks don't tell you that much on a message board. Which is why I'm inclined to think the reporter followed up with the people who were quoted. Also, this is more common than you'd think. I've seen both print and web-based magazines use comments from MetaFilter, Slate's "Fray" and such as "human voice" in their stories. I'm not sure how I feel about that (an online handle doesn't really identify a person, does it?), but it seems to be acceptable in some circles.
• yup, deC, except for this entry on the bb:
• does this mean I can't be snarky about USA Today then? Shoot! *pouts*
• snark away, p_b, i don't work there no more no how!
• if that is true, this is really serious. Agreed. Do you know if USA Today's dateline policy requires the reporter to actually be in that city? I was also wondering how the reporter verified the names, hometowns and ages of the sources if he never contacted them. And, if the quotes were directly lifted, I guess the most obvious question would be, why does the story read like he interviewed the sources himself? And what about the Weather Channel guy and the police lieutenant? Do they post on that message board too or were those quotes legit? But in fairness the storm chaser community hasn't posted a direct link to the possibly plagiarized quotes. Either way, I hope it's some sort of misunderstanding, because I hate to see stuff like this happen.
• I'm going to re-work this thread, quoting everyone and their profiles, and sell it to the NYT or Time. (The National Enquirer wouldn't be interested: it's a true story.)
• If you put in an Elvis sighting, you might get your National Enquirer sale, Skrik.
• de C: i'm thinking what MIGHT have happened, is possibly he contacted the people, said, "hey, you had a great quote on the board, can i use it in my story?" and possibly some said, "sure, here's my name, blah blah." but, as i said, several people in the article were stunned they were "quoted." and you bring up a very, very good point with the dateline. this is serious stuff, especially right now at usa today. i sent these links to my editor friend, and it's been passed up the line so the bigwigs know about it. plus, at least one stormchaser has contacted usat directly to complain. so i'm hoping there'll be some kind of explanation or disciplinary action soon. everyone who posts online shouldn't have to worry their words will be lifted. copyright issues aside, it's just unethical journalism. period.
• meanwhile, rolypoly, i've tried contacting you via email. i'd really like to discuss this with you. email me directly at dru.sefton@newhouse.com
• everyone who posts online shouldn't have to worry their words will be lifted. Damn. I post cuz I wanna be famous.