The daily digest of Twin Cities culture | Secrets of the City

Thats awesome...they even lifted my comment and used it as well...that kind of plagiarism takes talent.

forget about stealing the copy/content....go for the jugular and steal the entire conversation....kudos!

I think it's because Ed actually breaks a lot of stories, when he's not flinging phone books back at the phone companies.

Maybe Ed needs to be scarier so people fear for their livelihood if they don't give him due credit.

The via is important though, because you lose track of where it came from. Here's how that story travelled:

It was originally Dave Mindeman that found the comment on Politico and blogged about it. I then posted it on Twitter after reading Mindeman's post. Graham Lampa makes an image for it and puts it on his tumblelog. I reblog it on my Tumblelog. Then MNspeak links to the story and links to all the appropriate source material, and in all those cases linkbacks to the source material were given.

On the contrary, City Pages reports on it as if they found it themselves and gives Graham an image credit.

Big difference.

Now that being said, the City Pages Blotter does this all the time.

you folks are apparently operating under the pretext that CP is some sort of legitimate news organization. So I put the blame squarely on you for having expectations.

I hope the Strib doesn't steal my "kitties playing by the jack-o-lanterns" story I plan on breaking later this week.

City Pages and news (and its brother, credibility) are not even distant cousins. They could even get married but it would never last because they have absolutley nothing in common.

You can get paid to steal? Wow, what a deal.

If you're going to copy/paste make sure the information is still accurate. More thoughts here.

Aaron mentioned it in the comments to that specific story, and I believe he has pointed out similar uncredited items in the comments a few times in the past.

Fair enough.

Wow. If you look at Ed's follow up, the Wikipedia entry has changed significantly since he first posted the story. The earlier version does read like it was written by the committee to elect Erik Paulsen.

Robble robble.

In this instance, however, the story really was originated by Ed, and the City Pages story followed his construction almost exactly, including using his image, and neglected to discuss that the story had changed considerably since Ed originally posted the story. No long series of vias was required here. Just a link to the original story, which was, inexplicably, absent.

True. I'm just saying, it's confusing. And as new journalists end up blogging and journalists trained by old-time MSM'ers start going online... people like us need to help them along.

Jason, I feel no obligation to help paid journalists along. If they and their news organizations are serious about online reporting and want to avoid tripping along the way, they should seek out training. That's one of the points of LunchTalks.

If they're interested in coming across as professionals, they should seek professional help.

It's a topic I'm interested in, because I think finding a way to credit the unpaid people who are uncovering stories is important for MSM to do. I have a blog, so it's easy for me. And I've credited other blogs (like News Cut) on air. But it's not as natural for people who are used to pretending that they uncovered everything.

Well, good luck with that Ed. I've been a professional journalist for 11 years and have never been sent to any sort of training by any of my employers.

I feel no obligation to help anyone either, it's just something I like to do. Maybe I should start charging for my insights here.

I just think airing rants online about individuals and their performances is lame if there was no prior attempt to contact said individual.

By the way, Jason, criticisms in this thread have universally been directed at City Pages. The only people to call out Emily by name have been you and David. So I'm not sure that your suggestion that people in this thread are ranting about an individual is a fair assessment.

My understanding is that there's only one person who writes entries on the Blotter. I was speaking more broadly -- not just about this thread.

Anyway, didn't mean to start anything here. I just think it's reasonable to send an e-mail if you have a beef... Aaron explained that he's mentioned this many times in comment threads, and I stand by my forecful "fair enough."

I chose to call out Emily specifically rather than CityPages in my follow-up because she has the by-line and I know people at CityPages who don't do this. Had her story not been such a blatant rip-off I may not have so blatantly publicly flamed her.

Emily has now added a link to my original story to her story. Funny that she'd ad it to the phrase "bored enough" since the boring story I wrote was interesting enough to steal.

Notice that the link to The Deets doesn't detract at all from the story on CityPages and allows people to go deeper if they find the story interesting. Links add value.

Jason, LunchTalks' revenue to date has not come from the media industry.

That's pretty passive agressive of Emily. [via]

I got your internal via right here.

VIA is sort of internet currency and karma combined, and it's poopy when people don't properly use it.

That said I think "bored enough" was passive aggressive, but a bit funny too.

"Via" ethics are so Web 2.0 1.0.

Yes. There are bloggers that will fly into absolute frenzies if they don't get a via that they think they deserve, but you look at their blog and it's all linked from elsewhere on the Web, and there are few vias to be found.

Bixby's system doesn't address Ed and Aaron's concerns-- where they discover something, but then the writer goes back to the original source and does "original" reporting.

The via is a courtesy. Does WCCO source where it gets the idea for a story all the time? Does any MSM outlet do it all the time? The credit goes to the person who generated the content NOT the person who found it. If someone finds something, then generates new content about it (like Ed) and someone comments on that, then I'd say that's a must cite.

Might I just suggest that you quit bitching about City Pages and just read the Minnesota Independent, where many of the actual journalists who used to work at City Pages now toil.

I second that motion. Stop giving CP clicks.

Can I just say that the word "dearth" really bugs me; it doesn't sound like what it means. Alright then, as kwatt would say, kthxbi.

um . . . maybe? I dunno, when I think of that phrase for some reason I think of you. But I think of you all. the. time. anyway, so whatever. I apologize if I misrepresented your position on the matter.

I like the word chasm.

CP is total crap. I've never agreed with its tilt on most things, but at least it had passion and direction under Steve Perry. Now it's just blabbering garbage.

//I'm just saying, it's confusing. And as new journalists end up blogging and journalists trained by old-time MSM'ers start going online... people like us need to help them along.

Ummm......

Never mind.

Especially when it seems to have taken her all but a few hours to repurpose the weird Wisconsin news from MnSpeak to City Pages.

That Twitter account is now protected, although it appears a few commenters here can still see it. Although I wouldn't hold Emily too accountable for what gets printed with her byline.

My understanding is that there's only one person who writes entries on the Blotter.

Mine as well. My name showed up in a falsified story in the tabloid in April of this year. It didn't take long to learn that what the byline author submitted was not what was published, rather what Kevin Hoffman rewrote in its place. I chose not to even address the fake news piece, it was so invented and insignificant anyway. That was the last time I read CP.