Now, it appears the Your Life story was published earlier, nearly word for word and under a substantially similar headline, on Be Close's blog, three months ago. It was attributed to the same writer, Slon. (The story also was published Sept. 10 on the The re-publication, without notice to readers, risks blurring the line between commercial public relations content and independent news content -- the so-called Chinese Wall keeping a paper's editorial matter from being unduly influenced by commercial interests.
Your Life's closely watched launch, last Tuesday, comes amid a USAT reorganization designed to more tightly align the paper's advertising sales with its editorial content. Under the new structure, for example, the paper's No. 2 editor, Susan Weiss, works closely with a newly appointed vice president for business development, Rudd Davis.
When he announced details of the reorganization in late August, Publisher Dave Hunke said standards would be maintained. "Under no circumstances do we ever compromise our integrity," he told the Associated Press.
Following are screenshots of the elder care stories, as they appear on two of the websites.
Aug. 16, 2010
Nov. 12, 2010
Earlier: Visualizing the new Your Life site
Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
ALso in the Florida Sun-Sentinel in September, distributed by Hearst.
ReplyDeleteAside from mixing P.R. and editorial, this all seems rather lame. Your Life has just been launched. It's reasonable to expect, certainly in its early months, that the site would publish original, never-seen-before stuff. Otherwise, Your Life is going to come across as just another copycat site.
ReplyDeleteGoogle the lead graf and you will find this story already had appeared all over the place before USA Today ran it. For example, it was in the Winnepeg Sun in October.
ReplyDeleteIt is very lame, Jim. What I don't understand is how this story got around routine editing procedures. A simple Web search, which is routine for copy from free-lancers we haven't known before, would have turned up the fact the story had previously been published in rival papers. And red flags would have been raised over the use of a fake name.
ReplyDeleteIf we are this sloppy over handling a feature, we are heading towards a huge and costly libel suit over something that should never see print.
Somebody at USAT has some 'splainin to do.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder people speak harshly of news organizations. Can you imagine reading about "Helen" in one publication one day and seeing she lives in one city, then reading the same thing the next day, but with a different city listed? I'd begin to wonder if there is really a "Helen," and then would start questioning things reported in all the news stories. Readers aren't stupid.
USA Today recently updated its guidelines for using unnamed sources and distributed it to staff. The policy states that "The use of unnamed sources erodes our credibility and should be avoided." When unnamed sources are used, "only as a last resort," the policy says the source's identity "must be shared with and approved by the Content Executive Editor or Deputy Content Editor prior to publication.'' In the case of sports, the Sports Editor approves sourcing. "In the absence of a content team executive,'' it says unnamed sources may be approved by the Editor, Distribution Executive Editor, Print Publications Manager, Money Editor and Sports Content Editor.
ReplyDeleteGood God. What a downfall.
ReplyDeleteI thought we were supposed to love the new USAT because it would be providing stories that nobody else was. Apparently, it will also be providing PR pieces that everyone else does.
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine why anyone who actually values news would buy the paper anymore with so many better alternatives available both online and in print.
Huge mistake. No credibility. Why not just make up the whole thing? Why use any real sources?
ReplyDeleteJim, minor fix in second graf: Sun-Sentinel is a Tribune paper, not Hearst. It was a Hearst News Service story.
ReplyDeleteIs this what happens when you try to do too much, with too few people?
ReplyDeleteNewspapers now compete with technology start-ups. Yet, start-ups staff up quickly in the beginning, as they develop new products to better compete in the marketplace.
Meanwhile, USAT and other papers are shrinking their workforces; USAT eliminated about 130 jobs as part of this latest reorganization.
Plus, it's using more and more content drawn from outside the paper. Look at all the travel tip stories produced by Demand Media; what do USAT's editors know about the standards set for those stories?
Here is USAT's Anonymous Sourcing Policy; it seems even more restrictive than I recall from when I worked there until January 2008.
ReplyDeleteYour Life's mission includes attracting more ads from drugmakers. In percentage terms, I've been told, that advertising category has fallen more than any other this year vs. in 2009.
ReplyDeleteI checked to see if anything had changed overnight, and the story still has a front page reference on Monday's USA Today.
ReplyDeleteI hope they realize they are risking the future of the brand with these sort of silly shenanigans. If people don't trust us, they will turn away. And if they turn away, advertisers will, too.
There's a reason for the traditional "chinese wall" between advertising and marketing, and a newsroom. I think we are seeing what happens when the wall is breached before us with this silly story.
This is a litmus test for Hillkirk and other leaders. If they don't stand up and correct this outrage, I think we just might as well close shop and leave town.
"Your Life's mission includes attracting more ads from drugmakers."
ReplyDeleteAnd that's exactly the only reason for the section. If there were more than two casket makers in the country and death was a competitive business, we'd have "Your Death" instead of "Your Life", brought to you by Batesville.
It just proves the adage that editorial is the dirt shoveled around the ads - and if you doubt me, think about this: Who is the person that makes ads smaller when there's lots of important news?
Can you say..."Desperation"? Have another single malt Hunke!!!
ReplyDeleteWhen Hunke says, "Under no circumstances do we ever compromise our integrity," you gotta realize that he, personally, is starting from a REALLY LOW baseline. So, what the rest of us might judge a compromise is A-OK for Hunke. And if his head of advertising can ever attract some agency spending, we'll see even more examples of our "uncompromising" standards.
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the new, improved, transformed USA Today. Reader exit is on your left. Have a nice day.
This is so depressing. You work like hell to get a story, and get it right. And then they run crap like this stale Slon story alongside it.
ReplyDeleteIt must be true what I have been reading here that the consultants have told corporate that content doesn't matter.
I agree with Jim's earlier post. I doubt this was intentional. Just a very common oversight. USAT will now experience what the rest of the USCP has been feeling over the last two years. There aren't enough people, and the ones left are all out on job interviews. No one cares anymore.
ReplyDeleteThe Arizona Republic routinely runs "news" stories written by PR folks in their zoned community editions. They usually run an editor's note at the bottom of the story identifying the author as being with the organization he/she is writing about.
ReplyDeleteWell I certainly hope "Helen" was given some form of compensation! Her story is all over the place! LOL
ReplyDeleteWe have truly become a news-gathering organization. And I guess we no longer care where we gather that news from. This is embarrasing, but I fear it won't be the last.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't a mistake. This isn't stupidity. This is pure, unadulterated dishonesty.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Gannett, for once again setting a low standard for the industry.
This is appalling. USAT is exposing itself for what it is: Amateur Hour.
ReplyDeleteAren't the ethics standards written somewhere in the annual report or some other official document? If so, this is an outrage and so very dishonest. It's one thing to fool readers, but quite another to fool inverstors.
ReplyDeleteThis story is not being promoted on the front page of USA TODAY, nor is it in the newspaper. This is an online-only story. For what that is worth.
ReplyDeleteSo what if it wasn't in the printed edition. It still appears on the USAT website, along with real news stories.
ReplyDeleteThis shit brands USAT, like it or not.
Here's a good summary of the kind of "quality" content USAT/GCI may now pride itself in running:
ReplyDeletehttp://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=147099
Unfavorable opinions of the Web site transfer to the printed product and to the brand at large.
ReplyDeleteUSA Today has long been breaking "news" from press releases, so its reputation as a news source has never been strong.
TV folks, though, love quoting USA Today political polls, so I guess that's nice.
Jim asks: "Is this what happens when you try to do too much, with too few people?" in a word, yes. But really, USA Today, as well as other national papers, have a long tradition of taking stories that have gotten a lot of play in smaller markets and bringing them to a national audience. The web has certainly cut down on that. But the tradition still exists. And let's face it, news is often repurposed and repackaged. Sometimes the packaging is pretty and we accept it. (Just look at celebrity news).
ReplyDeleteRepurposing or repackaging is nothing new and an accepted part of modern journalism. But regurgitating is not, and that is what happened with this freelance piece. I personally know freelancers who write for major publications, then take the same reporting, rewrite and rearrange it, and sell it to another organization. That is ok and acceptable practice since both organizations are getting something that is original to them. But what is not ok is selling the exact same piece to several news organizations, as seems to have happened here. Honest freelancers run their stuff through the typewriter before they resell it.
ReplyDeleteBefore making accusations, I'd like to know what actually happened? Do we know that USA Today for a fact did not know about the article? Come on, people. Let's get the facts before spouting allegations. My guess would be that the paper knew about the other piece and didn't care. But I'm guessing and so are you. I happen to know Steve Slon as an honest, upstanding player. So let's look at the facts. I don't know what they are, either? .
ReplyDeleteBut to the original point, if USA Today knew that it was printed elsewhere, shame on them. If they didn't know, same thing.
You are missing the point 5:28. The Slon story had a red flag for USAT that might not have bothered other newspapers, and that was the granting of anonymity to someone who was the focus of the story. This is generally a no-no at USAT, where other newspapers might not have the same limitations or prohibitions. So how did the Slon story get through a copy desk, or was it even read by a copy desk. Who put it in the paper?
ReplyDeleteIn researching the Slon story, we have come up with other reasons to question what sort of vetting this story got: namely the appearance of the exact same story in other publications. A Web search would have uncovered this.
You are right we don't know the facts, and I can only hope this incident sparks interest by USAT to establish what happened, and whether there are some backdoor ways of getting copy into the paper that need to be closed. If anyone can slap a story into USAT at will, we are in deep trouble.
I just read the whole story and found that a doctor was quoted, but not named. Now that's just wrong any way you cut it.
ReplyDeleteI'm 5:28. And I actually agree. It was USA Today's fault. It would have taken about two minutes to figure it out. I just am saying that before accusing a freelancer of trickery, one should find out what actually happened. Like, did the writer even approach USA Today? Maybe an editor who needed copy in a hurry saw the story and asked to repurpose it. That's my only point. The whole anonymous thing is a different topic entirely. (um, signed, anonymous)
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it from a box that ran alongside his story, Slon has been taken on as a regular columnist at USAT's Life:
ReplyDelete" Steve Slon's Caregiving column runs the first Friday of the month at yourlife.usatoday.com. Slon blogs regularly about aging and caregiving for BeClose.com. He is the former editor of AARP The Magazine. See his blog at beclose.com/slon or write to him at steveslon@beclose.com. "
Maybe he'd have a comment for this blog, Jim.
ReplyDeleteThat would, of course, be welcome -- as would a comment from anyone in USAT's brass. Also, anyone can contact me privately by e-mail, on an off-the-record basis.
ReplyDeleteThe story has been removed from the website.
ReplyDeleteNo one is talking but hopefully this means they realize this was a mistake.
Do they run corrections/clarifications for web only stories? If so, it will be interesting to see how they explain this one away.
ReplyDeleteThe story is still on the website, 9:44, although it's no longer getting a link off the homepage.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it's worth repeating: I don't have a problem with the story, per se. My concern is with how it was handled at USAT in terms of being edited to comply with the paper's sourcing standards.
Also, as I wrote here and in an earlier post, it's dicey to publish a story by an author who writes on the same subject for a for-profit business -- especially when that's not made clear to the reader.
Just curious - is the writer obligated to tell USAT editors when and where the story appeared? I would think so, but not sure. Even so, it wouldn't excuse our editorial folks from doing their due diligence.....in other words, their jobs!
ReplyDelete12:42 That assumes editorial had a role putting this story on the Web site. Look at all the things that fell through the checks and balances of the copy desk, etc., What all this suggests to me is that editorial was not responsible for posting this story.
ReplyDeleteTruly frightening. I know that some in marketing and advertising want control over the editorial product on the grounds they could do a better job of selling ads and marketing if they were involved in how stories are assigned, written and edited. But this is the first time there has been any suggestion that control over newspaper copy is now indeed in the hands of advertising and marketing departments.
ReplyDeleteI think 5:24 may be right. Did Editorial even touch this before it went online? Does the head of this "vertical" even report to anyone in editorial?
ReplyDeleteThis whole incident shows me the reasons for the "Chinese wall" between the commercial side of the newspaper and editorial. When I started in this business, I worked for a paper where there was an iron-clad rule that no one from the commercial side was permitted to set foot on the editorial floor. That included the owner. The Baltimore Sun used to be owned by a banker-lawyer named Gary Black who never once in his life visited the newsroom.
ReplyDelete