On USA Today's YourLife web vertical about health, relationships and beauty, the newspaper is republishing a story that first appeared Aug. 24, about Steve Jobs' decision to step down as Apple's CEO amid his battle against pancreatic cancer.
Today's version appears to be word-for-word the same as the original. "While no one can say how Jobs will fare," it says, 'I suspect we will not be talking about years' of additional survival,' says Zev Wainberg, a gastrointestinal oncologist with UCLA's Jonsson Cancer Center with no personal knowledge of the case."
To be sure, a prominent editor's note alerts readers to the story's history.
That's certainly an efficient way of producing a timely story. More typically, however, papers produce new articles in situations like this. What do you think?
Earlier: How you learned about Jobs' death.
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.
To be sure, a prominent editor's note alerts readers to the story's history.
That's certainly an efficient way of producing a timely story. More typically, however, papers produce new articles in situations like this. What do you think?
Earlier: How you learned about Jobs' death.
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.
I think all the major news orgs are rehashing old news, so no surprise here; they all have to say or post something. Very few thought Steve's illness was this progressive, though stepping down from the board was a clue. It is still quite shocking news a day later.
ReplyDeleteI think it shows how incredibly lazy and/or short-staffed USAT has become.
ReplyDeleteI think USAToday did a good job with the Steve Jobs timeline. Leave it to Jim to only find criticism.
ReplyDelete2:05 Where in this post do I criticize the republication of this story?
ReplyDeleteIt would have taken almost 5 seconds to delete that paragraph from the story before posting it. But then, someone would have had to have taken the time to read the story before they posted it.
ReplyDelete2:42 is spot on. Do you see the New York Times, Wall Street Journal or Washington Post posting old stories? And even if they did, you can bet that these organizations wouldn't embarrass themselves by failing to update. Fortunately, this one was posted in Your Life, where readers most likely have come to expect old stories and third-rate journalism.
ReplyDelete3:19 - They still have reporters.
ReplyDeleteIt's lazy journalism produced by a lazy company that doesn't understand that most people read newspapers for their content rather than to simply cough up money for Gannett's coffers. That's why I stopped my subscription to USAT. When circulation folks called and asked me why I left, I told them that I didn't feel the product was competitive. That was the end of the conversation. There was nothing more the sales rep could say and she knew it.
ReplyDeleteI actually called to cancel my subscription the other day and the girl couldn't pronounce "Gannett" correctly. It was like she had no idea that's the company she was working for. It cracked me up and I had no ill feeling for being done with this sad excuse for a newspaper.
ReplyDeleteGlad I'm not the stomach of "our favorite octogenarian" when he looks at the sorry excuse of a newspaper USAT has become.
ReplyDelete