Indianapolis Star features reporter T.J. Banes wrote on summer camps in January 2007, the Indianapolis Newspaper Guild says, only to have the story "repurposed" and used with her byline as part of a metro section "summer camp guide" that was labeled a "special advertising feature" in the print Star metro section last Tuesday."This wasn't a case of an article being simply reprinted,'' the union says. "It was altered to mislead readers in a way that could damage this reporter's credibility with the sources of the original story. It was an embarrassment to the ethical standards the Indy News Guild has been pushing Star management to uphold since 2006, when the company first presented the idea of having journalists produce and edit so-called 'advertorial content."
The Guild represents about 180 Star employees. Read the full note on Romenesko's blog.
Earlier: Guild fights Kronos fingerprint time clock system
[Image: today's page, Newseum]
Oh boo hoo! It's a summercamp story for God's sake. If the company can make a couple of extra dimes with it...let them. It may be your job that's saved!
ReplyDeleteYou took a paycheck for it. The company owns your story. So why all the bellyaching. I think the union wants to pressure management to hire people to write these stories, but in this economic environment, it ain't gonna happen.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that simple, 12:49. Westchester reporters have been used for years to churn out advertising supplements. On most occasions, the stories have useful, if benign, information, so at least they can be justified to that extent.
ReplyDeleteThere have been cases, though, when reporters had their copy returned to them because it wasn't sufficently "upbeat" and contained too many negatives.
Simply put, editors put reporters in a position of leaving out informantion or sugarcoating things.
Anyone who doesn't see a problem with that belongs with a PR agency.
The union wants management to adhere to the contract, and that's why members pay dues: so the union guys keep the pressure on.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, though, management took down the Web story, issued a clarification, and wrote a note the reporter, according to the union. So, it appears the complaint brought results: "To their credit a clarification was issued, the story was pulled off the Web and an explanation provided to the reporter."
I'm reminded of a post I originally wrote in January 2009 -- then reposted in June -- about how newspapers were being slowly dismantled -- in the current Indianapolis case, one ethical standard at a time. Here are the key passages:
ReplyDeleteFar from Wall Street, Gannett's bid for survival has been quietly playing out in a big customer-service call center in Louisville, Ky., serving 22 of the 85 U.S. papers -- mostly in the East. There, scores of operators read from company-prepared scripts this month, describing the slow dismemberment of The Courier-Journal and the 21 other papers -- including the first one, in Elmira.
This poignant chapter in American journalism history is told in an otherwise routine, three-page company document I got from a reader. It's a cheat sheet for operators responding to bewildered and frustrated subscribers, calling from distant places about cutbacks in news and delivery.
But to future historians, the document would help explain the industry's early 21st century decline. They would discover that newspapers didn't all die overnight, much as Corporate just threatened the Tucson Citizen. Instead, publishers morphed into corporate chop shops, stripping their legacy papers of financial and intellectual capital -- piece by piece.
I'm curious: Does the Guild agreement covering this reporter preclude the Star from repurposing reports' stories in advertorial sections?
ReplyDeleteIf it does, she has a valid complaint. If not, she needs to either get on the wagon or get another gig.
I salute the union for standing up for ethics. Gannett seems to promote managers who are only vaguely familiar with the concepts taught in Journalism 101.
ReplyDeleteI sure hope the people posting here that see this as AOK are not journalists. Regardless of who paid for the story, it is unethical to take a reporter's work, modify it so that it works as advertising copy and then run it again with the reporter's name still attached. Part of the problem is that the people interviewed for the story were likely told they were being interviewed for a news story, not an advertising supplement. Frankly, if I was interviewed under those circumstances and later found my quotes used in an advertorial, I would seek compensation. It is not unlike taking someone's photo for a news story and then running it in an advertisement.
ReplyDeleteAlso, as the initial post notes, this could ruin the reporter's reputation with sources as well as the reading public, thus harming his/her future employment opportunities. Note that I'm not saying the act was illegal, but it is certainly unethical.
The Guild might not have a clause addressing this because just a few years ago an act like this would have been unthinkable in any serious newsroom. Sadly, the people running Gannett newsrooms no longer take journalism seriously, so there you go.
One thing you're right about 7:10 is that this reporter should seek out another job, as she clearly has higher standards than the Indianapolis Star.
Hats off to the guild for defending ethics, even during this economy. That takes serious backbone and grit.
ReplyDeleteJust think what the news would be like if unions were strong and people had a leg to stand on as far as ethics go.
ReplyDeleteCome on you think the Guild cares about Ethics. They care about opening up more jobs for new reporters so they can collect more dues. Ethics and Union in the same sentence? Pleeeeeease people.
ReplyDeleteYea, what's ethical about some goon throwing star nails under a delivery truck during a strike. Or some idiot smashing the windows of someones car when they try and cross a pciket line. Ethics works both ways lemmings. Don't insult us
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Gannett needs an ethics cleanup anyway it can get it. If that means union action, so be it. I'll gladly use the two words "ethics" and"unions" in the same sentence.
ReplyDeleteSeveral years ago, I worked for a newspaper company that took great pains to make sure there wasn't even the appearance of an ethical problem. We didn't have a union to police things, but management was smart enough to know that our reputation was on the line everyday.
ReplyDeleteToday, I work for Gannett and the newspaper is filled with trash. The advertising folks and the local chamber of commerce can practically order up any story they want. The company's sudden interest in "watchdog journalism" is laughable.
Why do unions choose such marginal battles?
ReplyDeleteI never wrote that unions always behave ethically, but hopefully journalists do. And ... the union in this case is representing journalists.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I don't care what those of you who love Gannett's policies do. If you are happy writing news stories that get turned into advertising copy and then are repurposed as toilet paper for Al Neuharth, more power to you. Enjoy the gig.
My point was that this is not something that should happen in a "real" newsroom. And I guess I should understand that lash out. Gannett is only about money. People who are happy working for Gannett are only about money. Makes sense. And for those folks anything that makes a dime is fair game.