Taking a page out of the slacker handbook this week is apparently The Australian's Frank Devine, who finds that sources are much more easy to get quotes from when you just Google the topic you are looking for, make a few key changes to the exact quotations and information that someone else acquired, and print them in your own article. Some people say that journalists are getting information and topics to write about from blogs, and I don't doubt it, since it works most of the time in the other direction - but I think this is just a bit silly. What follows below comes to me via a colleague of mine, who figured it was right up my alley and thought it wise that more people are made aware of it.

Way back on January 19, Arabisto.com contributor Rima Abdelkader published this item entitled "FOX TV Show '24' Angers Arab/Muslim Fans in the United States and Abroad," featuring comments from New York-based law student and Arab-American Sawsan Zaky, who expressed horror towards FOX's hit show because of how it showed Muslims in America - and that's just part of the quality story that Abdelkader had put together. Here's where Devine fits in. Seems that he thought the same about the work from the Arabisto site, and used slightly altered quotes in this commentary, published on Feburary 2 under the hed of "There's no villainy in reflecting the truth about terrorists." It seems that Sawsan Zaky is either the most quoted person from the Arab-American community when it comes to 24, or his quote is just really really good and it's no big deal if we tweak a few words here and there. Devine also did a really good job of sourcing information about Dr. Jack Shaheen, who told Abdelkader about his research on film and television and its portrayal of Muslims - but never spoke with the Australian staffer.

As it turns out, Crikey's Jane Nethercote was able to get in touch with Devine, something that the folks at Arabisto unfortunately weren't able to do when they wrote about how this all went down, in an item by Nadia Gergis on Feburary 2. Devine apparently told Crikey that he found Abdelkader's item in Google, and used it "as a reference" because it was "among the more up to date." How quaint.

In my eyes, this is just as lazy as people who use Wikipedia as a flat out source, rather than a strong starting point that has excellent links to original, [we hope] reputable sources of information. I mean, if you read it on the Internet, it must be true, right? Frank Devine may be penning under the world of being a columnist, but after being editor at the Chicago Sun-Times and executive editor of the New York Post two decades ago, you'd think he would know better. It's not so hard to say "In fact, one outspoken blogger found out firsthand from Arab-Americans in the New York City area that..." in your column, now is it?

Another tsk, tsk is the least of Frank Devine's worries at this point, and I seriously hope that I've done my part to spread this story on this side of the globe.

From the stupid captions department, we find this example of a description of a fight breaking out in the middle of the Washington Capitals and Philadelphia Flyers game on Tuesday. It's great that we now know that the Caps' Alexander Ovechkin is "from Russia" when describing him. How fantastic is that.

Stupid. Oh, and Richards is from Kenora, Ontario, which is in Canada. Just sayin'.

This morning, Dan Gillmor published an open letter to the community of Bayosphere users, along with the rest of us who are interested (and part of) the citizen journalism community. It's a must-read, IMHO, and can shed some light on the ins and outs of putting together a successful community of newsgatherers, interested readers, and others.

So, you're looking for transparency in journalism or a reason why journalists might like having a blog? Check out this post by Jackie Corley, a writer at The Courier, a local publication in Central New Jersey.

Jackie had written up an article about a town's mayor who was picked up on a DWI charge last week, a story that was bumped for something else. After that happened, she posted it to her blog. And yes, her superiors are okay with it having been published there.

Just in case anyone thought the pub was trying to "hold back" on the story getting out there at all, it appears that this isn't the case.

Like him or not, James Wolcott does ring the bell very well sometimes, which is why he's in my RSS reader. This week, he's calling out journalists for their continued cracking on bloggers for their "work habits" when, as it turns out, there are plenty of journalists who aren't exactly on the up and up across the board. Again, this isn't a full-on condemnation, so hold your mouse before commenting, it's just a statement of fact - there are a lot of stones being thrown out of glass houses, IMHO, and Wolcott definitely shares that opinion.

Again, this is by no means a comeuppance for bloggers as a whole, just a state of the union that those who would like to shame the great unwashed might want to scrub a little under the arms in some cases.

Over at Lost Remote, Steve Safran mentions the term "legacy journalists" being used to describe those who wrote for what most bloggers and "new media" folk call the mainstream media. I think it's kind of an obnoxious usage, because there is no need to defame those who are practicing journalism through "old" media outlets like newspapers and magazines. The last thing any of us need is for the journalism itself to change, really.

Nick Madigan details the concern that has arisen across the mass media about the use of certain terms, such as "refugee," when describing those who have been displaced by Hurricane Katrina. Some of the problems are with terms considered possibly racist in nature, or, more specifically, the context of how those words are used, whether describing white people, black people, or others. I've shared my thoughts on this situation, at least regarding "refugee" as a term, but I'm certainly not surprised with any outrage by Americans about certain usage of terms to describe various groups of people.

Last month, Miami Herald columnist Jim DeFede was fired from his position at the newspaper after recording a phone conversation with a troubled former city executive. In Saturday's New York Times, Terry Aguayo reports that DeFede will not be charged by Miami or Florida officials for his actions, which violate a state law that telephone conversations cannot be recorded without all parties being aware of it.

Over at BusinessWeekOnline's Blogspotting, Stephen Baker writes about how a reader of that blog doesn't fancy so much the use of the term "refugee" to describe those individuals who have lost their homes and ways of life in the Southeastern U.S in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. As far as style and usage goes, it's probably not improper to use the term in this manner, but it might not be the most appropriate. Baker seems content to utilize it if it's "reframed" based on the negative feeling that the word might have with some individuals, but I don't think that's the big issue here. I'd lean more towards using a more appropriate word in a grammatical or stylebook-ish sense, such as "evacuee," "displaced person," or maybe what is the best choice, "survivor."

Sure, a quick glance at the bulk of terms that come up in the thesaurus to replace "refugee" might not be so positive in feeling, but that isn't the only way to use a better term in his place.

[ed: for those who the post title was lost on, check here. And yes, I know the title was probably a bit 'inside baseball.' Oh, and for those of you who believe this post's topic is splitting hairs, I'll agree with you - but at the same time, based on the reaction that "looter" has caused by many, I thought it worthwhile to post this.]

If you're looking for the other side of the horrible tragedy that's taken place in New Orleans and other parts of the Southern U.S., then drop by A Small Victory, where Michele is compiling as much positive news as she can. Through all of what has happened, there are many stories of people helping other people - it's at least a small positive in what has been an utter disaster.

In Monday's edition of the Christian Science Monitor, Barbara Kelley writes about her surprise to how some of her journalism students at Santa Clara University reacted towards the need for truthfulness and constant ethical behavior in journalism and the level of difficulty it takes to be good at the job.

It's been pretty apparent in recent years that the staggering amount of material online is ripe for the picking for those who would love to plagiarize other works. At the same time, institutions of higher learning and other groups have found it just as easy to search out source material for papers, articles, and other items even by putting in a few key phrases through a search engine or two. Now comes word that LexisNexis is working on an additional feature to its services wherein documents will be "checked" against the over six billion documents the company says it has in its own queue.

The Princeton Packet's Rachel Silverman details a summer journalism program at Princeton University that teaches high school-aged students about the ins and outs of journalism - but in this case, the participants are "from underprivileged backgrounds." This is what one of the professors, Richard Just, calls "a very small step" towards increasing diversity in the newsroom.

Over at OpinionEditorials.com, Robin Mullins Boyd posts a harsh criticism of the media, focusing on the lack of positive news coming out of Iraq on a regular basis. Boyd claims many positive tidbits of information are freely available, and that if she can find it, then "big media" should be able to do the same.

In a column set to run in this week's New Times Broward-Palm Beach, Bob Norman continues the skewering of the Miami Herald regarding the firing of columnist Jim DeFede after he admitted recording a phone call where the person on the other end - a former local government official who would shortly afterward shoot himself in the Herald's lobby - didn't know about the tape being turned on. Norman's piece, like quite a few others hitting the streets these days, are laying the blame squarely on Knight Ridder management, not on the Herald's Tom Fielder.

In an item surely set to cause a stir with some Americans, some editors of the Oregon Daily Emerald detail the "ban" put in place by the Russian government against ABC after they interviewed a Chechen leader wanted in Russia. It seems that since the news network did something that Russia didn't like, it will now not have access to the Russian government for their newsgathering.

At first glance, this news makes you twist your face with a "tough luck, interviews are interviews" look - but after the comments that are made in the last graf regarding Osama bin Laden, I wonder how many people would feel the same way.

Over at Slashdot, an item posted this morning informs about a note in an article about Google, focused on the company's apparent need for in-house chefs, that states that the company has now implemented a policy of not speaking with any reporters from the CNET organization until sometime in 2006. This is in apparent retribution for another piece that site previously written - one that seems strangely hypocritical or at least a little silly.

I can understand situations where many companies don't want to do business with a publication or media outlet because of something reported incorrectly or when quotes are mangled from an executive - but here, CNET is guilty of using Google itself to find out information about the company's CEO, Eric Schmidt, and using it as part of the above-mentioned article. Again, perhaps something should be said in the "just because you can do xyz.." vein, but it is in a way, comical, IMHO.

At the same time, one should take to heart that this means Google realizes that it doesn't really need CNET in order to get in the news or have good things written about the company. Between other media outlets, blogs, and word of mouth, no one media player can seriously claim itself as a necessity, no matter what anyone tells you.

[edit: For those of you who've landed here and are looking for information about Google's new "Google Talk" software, you can find a review and commentaries that are on topic here at Download Squad. If you're looking to download the software, you can do so here. As for why you've landed here, it appears that I happened to use the term 'Googletalk' in the title of this post, completely unbeknownst to me that the company was naming their new IM/Voice chat client by the same name. Sorry for the delay in getting you what you were looking for!]

Earlier today, The Media Center announced that it would be holding an event later on this year at the headquarters of the Associated Press in NYC - an event called "We Media: Behold the Power of Us." It's going to be an all-day event on October 5, featuring speakers and panelists from a variety of media areas, including Wonkette's Ana Marie Cox, Buzzmachine's Jeff Jarvis, Jason Calacanis of Weblogs, Inc., Steve Rubel from CooperKatz and Micro Persuasion, among others.

Lots more information available here, including agenda and registration details.

Last week, I first heard about the suicide of a former Miami city executive, Arthur Teele, while reading Liz Donovan's Infomaniac blog. According to a story in that paper on Thursday, Teele walked into the Miami Herald's offices on Wednesday, and asked to speak to staffer Jim DeFede. After being connected to the columnist, he spoke for a while and then proceeded to kill himself by firing two bullets into his head.

Wednesday night, DeFede was fired for making a recording of the telephone conversation with Teele - which he did without telling Teele it was being done. In Florida, as it is in a few other states, it is illegal to make a telephone recording without the parties involved knowing that it is happening. Also on Thursday, the Herald's Christina Hoag wrote about the paper's decision to terminate DeFede, a decision that it believes wasn't made quite so hastily, even though it came that same day.

Obviously, the publication wanted to avoid any legal troubles that might come about when a staffer violated Florida law, including potential prosecution of DeFede by the state.

Additionally, speculation has arisen by some that a highly critical article that went live that Wednesday on newsstands and online at the Miami New Times, the city's alt-weekly, could have pushed Teele over the edge. However, E&P's Joe Strupp reports, both the writer of that article, Francisco Alvarado, and the Herald's editor Tom Fiedler, disagree.

One question remains, however - is whether a recording of this type by a journalist something that should be not only legal, but ethically proper? In Tuesday's USA Today, J-prof Philip Meyer penned a fantastic op-ed on the topic, asking whether it really makes sense for recording of phone conversations to be illegal or, at the least, immoral for journalists. The primary focus of Meyer's defense is that of note-taking. For instance, if DeFede had merely started jotting down what Teele said to him on the telephone, it would be considered the truth by most, but a recording is always considered the most sure bet. He says that "It is none of those things [ed: "those things," meaning 'an invasion of privacy, act of deception, eavesdropping, or entrapment' - taken from Thomas Glasser's commentary cited by Meyer in his piece.] if the person being interviewed knows he is talking to a reporter, as the suicidal former councilman did."

So what do we think about this - if someone is voluntarily talking to a member of the press, and the telephone conversation is recorded - something that might have happened for sure had the conversation taken place in person - is it a fire-able, moral or illegal offense?

[update] Liz Donovan has written much more on this topic over at the Herald-located Infomaniac blog. Entries here, here, here, here and here.

When you're having a conversation with someone who isn't necessarily up on the local lingo as you are, it's usually helpful to bring them up to speed and put things in context for him or her. Likewise, it's helpful to actually define a certain term when it's an integral part of your news article. Unfortunately, Jay Cridlin didn't do that in an article in the St. Petersburg Times on Wednesday describing people getting "dooced," that is to say, getting fired for writing something on a weblog.

Surely, most people reading this article aren't going to have a clue why this is called "being dooced" and I can't say that the term has made it into the public lexicon just yet. If anything, stuff like this is the easiest part of being a journalist in some ways.

[via Steve Rubel]

Durango Herald managing editor Alice Klement provides an anecdote about her time working in the newspaper business to promote journalism as a profession, expressing her hope that today's newspapers can continue in the tradition of old-time journalism, irrelevant of whatever corporate ownership they may reside in.

The Washington Post's Ariana Eunjung Cha writes about the citizens' journalism effort surging across the U.S. (and other places across the globe) right now. Amusingly enough, at the center of the item is "Your Mom," an entity put on by the Iowa-based Quad-City Times.

The Rocky Mountain News picks up a Hollywood Reporter article by Paul Gough and Chris Marlowe about how cellphone photography and video has turned everyday people into citizen journalists, just as many blogs have been perceived to have done the same.

This afternoon, New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. released a statement about the decision made by staffer Judith Miller to not reveal her source to a grand jury and go to prison. Sulzberger reflects on the point when shield laws were created by many states, and hopes that Congress will create a similar situation on a federal level.

The folks over at Radar Online are wondering whether or not Arnold Schwarzenegger's involvement with American Media may have clouded his policy decisions.

Daily Pundit's Bill Quick suggested Tuesday that today's media is only worried about the attack on sourcekeeping because it believes it is above the law, somewhat. While he's right that the media as a whole has had some serious ethical issues of late, I don't see how the media as a whole would begin to keep itself going, reporting on things that the government or other organizations are doing, things that someone felt not to keep secure - it'd be almost impossible, were sources regularly yanked out from journalists' background information.

What's curious here is that the CIA operative's name is public, and the grand jury appears to be fishing someone to find out who the sources are - why aren't they just ask Bob Novak, who actually named the CIA operative in the first place?

FishbowlDC's Garrett Graff points out that the NYT's Judith Miller will be sent to jail for not revealing her source in the Plame case, while TIME's Matthew Cooper has been "freed from his confidentiality promise."

The cablers are covering a press conference about Miller's choice, one that is called a "brave and principled choice" by the Times' executive editor Bill Keller. Her attorney, Floyd Abrams, commended her for this decision, one that she made with "no personal benefit" to herself.

The Seattle Times' Seung Hwa Hong writes about the retirement of Oren Campbell, the longtime adviser and publisher of the University of Washington's student newspaper, The Daily.

On Monday afternoon, E&P's Jennifer Saba reported that former WaPo correspondent and Court TV founder Merrill Brown was announced as the national director of Carnegie-Knight's "News 21" program. This is a significant effort that brings together students from multiple schools to "work" for various media outlets during the summer.

Indianapolis Star editor Dennis Ryerson writes about how journalists can exist as people as a member of society while still making sure to stay on the ethical side of doing their jobs.

The Chicago Tribune's Mary Ann Fergus reports on the documentary created by 7th grade student Marissa Suchyta about one of the well known media blunders of our time, the "Dewey Defeats Truman" hed that ran in the Chicago Daily Tribune in 1948. Suchyta won a $500 prize in a national contest for her efforts.

Over at Corante, Dominic Basulto leads us to an item by Kurt Andersen from New York magazine about how news and information gets put together for the rest of us to read.

Earlier this year, we learned of some difficulties at Ithaca (NY) High School's Tattler student newspaper, where the school's administration made editorial changes to at least one item they didn't agree with. This weekend, the Associated Press (via WSTM-TV) is reporting that the newspaper has filed suit against the school district to fight against the editorial guidelines placed on it.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer carries an article Thursday about the Urban Journalism Workshop, a program run by the National Association of Black Journalists' chapter. The piece, written by a local high school student, Alison Toney, detailed what local students got to experience by participating in seven sessions that took place on Saturdays.

The Waco Tribune-Herald runs a piece where the author, Joanna Cattanach, describes how journalism changed after Woodward & Bernstein and "Deep Throat" become household names. It's kind of curious, because at the same time that Cattanach decries how some journalists are doing their jobs today, looking only for the big story, she "can't wait to read about it," whatever 'it' is. Then again, perhaps she is just hoping that journalists can be responsible, anonymous sources or not, in creating the next "gate."

In the Washington Times, Jennifer Harper writes about a recent study [PDF] by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) that showed a decrease of one-third for the number of anonymous sources used in a large sample of media stories covering the first year of President Reagan's administration as compared to the first year of President George W. Bush's term.

What's it mean? Well, leaving the folks with conspiracy theories aside, it means that journalists are not only relying on more sources who are on the 'up and up' and attempting to get more credible sources to share information on the record.

The AP's Matt Volz writes Saturday about a letter to the editor that an Alaska state staffer, Joe Holbert, sent to the Juneau Empire. In the letter, Holbert portrayed himself as a journalist, never mentioning his current profession. Holbert defends himself by saying that he was expressing his "personal" feelings about a gas pipeline deal that the state is looking into, and not relating anything specific to his role as a spokesperson for the government. But is it the right thing to have done?

You can read the letter here.

Penn State Live's Steve Sampsell writes about some research that shows that some sports departments at publications are a little lax with their ethical standards, as compared to the rest of the newsroom.

Has Newsweek's retraction made press credibility worse in the eyes of readers?

Also, check out this item in the Stanford Daily, which covers a panel discussion on Monday on that school's campus. Included on the panel was Tim Porter, who put together some of the best thoughts on the Newsweek situation.

Tuesday's Wall Street Journal features a piece by Joe Hagan about sourcing and journalism in today's world. Hagan discusses whether unnamed or anonymous sources, which for a long time have been the originators of stories that have become huge deals, could take a big hit as far as credibility goes in the reader's eye - and if that's a good thing for us all in the long term.

For, as it is with many sensitive issues, many people don't want to speak on the record, and a publication might not run a story without naming the source - even if it has multiple sources - so who's ever going to tell the hard story. Not that this is *really* the issue in this particular instance with Newsweek, but it's definitely related. The topic of much discussion for the next few weeks will absolutely be under what circumstances that unnamed sources can and should be used, and if more internal controls have to be in place so that sources can maintain their privacy and a publisher can maintain its dignity.

By now everyone's heard at least a tidbit or two about the whole Newsweek disaster surrounding their report that a copy of the Koran was destroyed during interrogations at Guantanamo Bay. K. Paul Mallasch has a good roundup on the situation, and Instapundit seems to be a rip-roaring good time for the subject as well.

[update] LGF points out that the magazine has retracted the story this evening.

In Tuesday's Philadelphia Daily News, John Baer offered up the advice he would have given to students graduating from a journalism school somewhere this week.

Read the whole thing.

A study by the Missouri School of Journalism's Center for Advanced Social Research turned up some tidbits about how people perceive the media as a whole. Specific feedback on credibility, bias, and general "nosiness" are all part of the study.

Editor & Publisher reports that two Kalamazoo Gazette reporters were fired from the newspaper after it came out that they had had a few beers while covering a story about the drinking habits of young people.

[Thanks, Ken!]

Space.com features an adAstra column by Greg Little about how stories rate in today's newspaper world. His qualm is centered around how a story about singer Kid Rock getting arrested was on the front page of a Nashville paper while another story about the serious possibility of life on Mars was "on about page A9." We know it's all about selling papers, but whether that's right or wrong or even a new happening isn't the big issue here. It's Little's suggestion that "it will take people who have actually practiced what we call "community journalism" to take over these media outlets to begin telling the important stories on page one, as well as restoring credibility to our profession."

So, those who would want to be considered "community journalists," are you ready to stand up and be counted?

On Thursday, the Atlanta Press Club announced that NBC News anchor Brian Williams will be present at next week's Annual Gala. Williams will be the keynote speaker that evening, which is expected to attract around 500 guests.

When: April 28, 2005, 6:30-10p.m.
Where: Westin Buckhead, Grand Ballroom
Who: Members $75, Non-Members $120