Tucson Citizen reporter Anne T. Denogean says the copy of her column I posted today was incomplete, and got leaked to me without her OK. I got it after a tip that a Citizen column was spiked because a Gannett executive objected to its veiled criticism of plans to sell or close the paper. An employee 15 years, Denogean is one of about 60 newsroom workers who could lose their jobs. Here's her e-mail to me:
Hi Jim,
The reason the leaked column contained "garbled text" is because the column was never finished.
I am not at all happy that it was leaked and not out of a need to protect Gannett. One, as a rough draft, it doesn't meet my personal standards of quality (among other things, I hadn't got around to correcting typo-related misspellings of my co-workers' names). Two, I think it was extremely rude, slimy and disrespectful of a colleague to go into my queue, make a copy of my unfinished work and send it out for publication without my authorization. We are all frustrated about our current circumstances, but we're family here at the Citizen and you just don't do that to another member of your family.
Anne T. Denogean
By the way, I don't deal in anonymous. You can print this comment with my name.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
28 comments:
Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Two, I think it was extremely rude, slimy and disrespectful of a colleague to go into my queue, make a copy of my unfinished work and send it out for publication without my authorization. We are all frustrated about our current circumstances, but we're family here at the Citizen and you just don't do that to another member of your family."
ReplyDeleteRude, slimy and disrespectful - yes, all three. But please don't try to pretend that you or any other reporter in Tucson wouldn't be happy as a pig in shit if a government worker leaked a draft of the mayor's budget. Or if an admin assistant at Corporate leaked an e-mail from one of the goons in Tucson right now overseeing your paper.
Leaks happen.
I think we have all reached a new low here.
ReplyDeleteMy shame will destroy an otherwise nice day.
Thanks.
As much as I have sympathy for the author of the column, 9:25 AM is correct. Leaks happen, and with the state of the Company right now, any information that is leaked is just as newsworthy as a scandal at the mayors office.
ReplyDeleteA mere case of the inmates running the asylum.
ReplyDeleteWell, leaks may happen, but whoever leaked that column stole it from the author. Is that what we've been reduced to, stealing from our colleagues to get a little (anonymous) glory?
ReplyDeleteYou people are pathetic.
I'm sure the suits are pleased that the staff in Tucson are now eating their own. Divide and conquer!
ReplyDelete"it doesn't meet my personal standards of quality"
ReplyDeleteYou work for a dying paper in the Gannett chain. You have no personal standards of quality, so don't start blowing that wind.
"But please don't try to pretend that you or any other reporter in Tucson wouldn't be happy as a pig in shit if a government worker leaked a draft of the mayor's budget."
But, but, but -- that's different! She's a defender of the First Amendment! Democracy itself would cease to exist without her.
"You people are pathetic."
You're just now figuring this out?
Actually, folks, most leaks are purposeful acts by someone wanted to get information out.
ReplyDeleteIt is NOT someone going into a computer file -- whether it's in Tucson or at the Justice Department -- and purloining a document and leaking it. That is called theft.
(See United Fruit, Chiquita and the Westchester papers for what can happen when stuff is illegally obtained).
There's no doubt that plenty of material is lifted from inside government, but in most cases it's a willful act by someone who already has access to the material.
Gray areas here, but the Tucson writer is totally right to be ticked off. I would be.
Gray? I don't see this as gray. This has no comparison to a government leak, because in free societies, the government belongs to the people. There are sunshine laws that force governments to comply with requests for information; a leak from within government just makes our jobs as journalists easier, because we get the information without filing requests.
ReplyDeleteThe leaked column, however, is a clear-cut example of intellectual property theft from a private corporation. There is no moral defense for theft. It's one thing to declare Gannett an immoral institution; it's another thing entirely to commit immoral acts in order to demonstrate how immoral Gannett is.
I agree with the columnist. This was a little league move. No, no, that's an insult to little league. The cheat that did this wouldn't cut it there. This isn't a leak. It's a heist. And it's pathetic.
ReplyDeleteI like all the remorse Jim is showing over this matter. In your rush to trash Gannett, you publish a pilfered copy of incomplete work, you apparently have no contact with the author about it, AND you "edit" it. Nice work, Jim.
ReplyDeleteJim
ReplyDeleteI think you dropped the ball on this one. A coworker taking her column out of her private que prior to it being edited was unethical and unfair; giving it to you prior to publication would have been pretty shady, too; and you posting it without contacting her first really surprises me.
Usually, I think your standards of fair play are exceptionally high, but not this time.
Sorry Anne,
ReplyDeleteThere is NO NEWS, if we don't take a leak every now and then.
Turnabout is fair play.
9:25 am is closest to my view on where my responsibilities rest as a First Amendment journalist: I treat every scrap of paper I encounter as a public document worth considering for publication -- unless I'm persuaded otherwise.
ReplyDelete4:49 pm and all: Very interesting debate!
ReplyDeleteNow, some questions to frame the discussion:
First: Many of you seem to assume that I was the only one who got a leaked copy. I always assume the opposite, however, which kicks in my competitive instincts.
That's the reporter in me. Questions:
1. Are you/were you a newsroom employee?
2. Put In my shoes, what would you do?
Journalist? Jim, you were a jounalist. Now you are unemployed. You quit your job as a journalist. You now deal in rumors and once in awhile come up with a truthful ditty. In actuality you are a guy who blogs and begs for money. Sorry but that is the truth. If you didn't have someone supporting you, you wouldn;t even be able to blog. Even in the new world of information sharing, you are not a journalist. You are a former journalist.
ReplyDeleteHave a fun day. Word Ver = Monsalty.
As long as you're asking, I would have called the author to confirm she really was the author, told her we were going to publish "the leaked document" as is, and gotten her comments.
ReplyDelete6:06:
ReplyDeleteThere very well may be an ethical lapse on Jim's part here. There's a diff between leaked and stolen documents. But I can also see cause for his trigger-happiness, given the state of affairs on the H.M.S. Titanic.
That aside, to lamely diss Jim with this "former journalist" nonsense is a bit much, don't 'ya think? This blog has done more aggressive reporting on the demise of the industry we all presumably work in than just about anyone.
In particular, his pieces a few months back on the abuses and excesses of the the Gannett Foundation and Freedom Forum board members (the whole Western Carolina golf retreat)is Pulitzer-worthy.
Like any of us, Jim is not infallible. But former journalist?
Nice try.
Wilford
1. Are you/were you a newsroom employee?
ReplyDeleteI am.
2. Put In my shoes, what would you do?
(Before writing this part, I read the relevant parts of "Playing It Straight: A Practical Discussion of the Ethical Principles of the ASNE" by John L. Hulteng. It was published in 1981. I don't know if there are newer ethics books.)
It's tough to balance outrage with the public's need to know.
At the least, I would have contacted the author to verify that the document was indeed written by her. and notified her of my intention to publish the document because of its newsworthiness. (At that time I would have confirmed that the document was an unfinished draft.) I also don't think the general public needs to know who wrote the document, because the story is not so much about a specific person dealing with corporate interference as it is that corporate executives may be interfering in unethical ways. Removing the byline might assuage the complaint about publishing someone's work before it is ready, and is most fair to the author.
I might also have tried contacting the editor in question to see whether this was the article they were allegedly discussing before it was spiked, and include the editor's comment.
I would have published the document because like Jim said, once it is leaked, it's in the wild. Maybe Romenesko was bcc'd on the leak. Also, because Gannett Blog is about what is going on at Gannett properties, including about potential ethics issues that might arise from corporate interference, the leaked document and the circumstances surrounding the story spiking are newsworthy not only to Gannett Blog readers, but also to the general public.
I still believe that the leaked document was stolen intellectual property. I think that Jim publishing the document as part of a news story about the spiking is covered under the fair use provisions of U.S. copyright law, because of the document's importance to the news story.
I think that the person inside the newspaper who stole the document committed theft. I bet that person also uses LimeWire to steal MP3s, but this is more like leaking unfinished copies of movies and CDs. And unless that person was smart and used some removable media (or gmail with SSL), they could get caught, fired, sued, etc. I hope it was worth it.
since when does "gets paid" appear in the definition of Journalist?
ReplyDeleteA person can be a Journalist and not get paid...just look at all the community contributions in most of your papers...ummm...maybe that isn't the best argument...
A journalist is a professional, not a self proclaimed used to be. When you took the buyout to become a homebody you ceased being a profesisonal. Any schmuck can have a blog. Granted this is a fun site but you are just a guy with a blog. The day you stopped getting a paycheck you became a retired journalist. But whatever gets you through the day Jimmie. I mean you are the same "Journalist" who went to the stockholders meeting and sat in the corner without saying a word. Journalist.....right.
ReplyDeleteBut then "Wilford" luvs ya
To 9:51 p.m. Thanks for your balanced thoughts on "leaking" the reporter's column. They are appreciated.
ReplyDeleteUhm, some of the best journalists I know are not collecting a full-time paycheck from a newspaper/magazine/television station etc. Some of the best investigative journalism out there is completed by freelance writers.
ReplyDeleteTo claim you're only a journalist if you collect a full-time check from a newspaper company is obtuse at best and pathetically stupid, shallow and shortsighted at worst.
BTW: If you think about it, that attitude is exactly why Gannett and so many other traditional media companies have failed. This mentality that the new media isn't worthy and that new media journalists aren't journalists is precisely the shortsighted view of "journalism" that has buried the industry.
I'm not trying to defend Jim, as he can do that himself. More trying to point out the irony.
We enjoy seeing Jim getting shredded.
ReplyDeleteA real journalist would have contacted someone.
I don't enjoy seeing Jim get shredded, but I want and expect him to stand up and admit his error.
ReplyDelete7:34 p.m. is exactly right. Contacting the author and asking for comment is the MINIMUM standard for an ethical, self-respecting journalist, and no "what would you do" quizzes and qualification exercises are needed to meet that standard.
Let's quit eating our own and get back to the larger issue:
ReplyDeleteGannett, a news company that trumpets the First Amendment, is censoring its people.
Gannett had no reason to spike Anne's column. It was pretty tame.
It you want to make Gannett uncomfortable, hand this in to the visiting censors:
"The news staff has been told that prospective buyers will do a walk through of the Tucson Citizen newsroom the week of March 30.
"But the 'assets' consist of some newsroom computers and furniture and the domain name for the Tucson Citizen. The building, press, and so forth remain in the JOA.
"Why would a prospective buyer need to walk through to see some old computers, you might ask?
"Because dogs and ponies are on the horizon.
"The Justice Department is leaning hard on Gannett to find a buyer. Gannett would have been content to close the operation and pay out about $200,000 in severance.
"But thanks to the unintended consequences of its actions, Justice will end up causing Gannett to screw the employees out of their severance by 'selling' the newspaper.
"The visitors this week will likely be fake buyers who will purchase the domain name and resell it for a few dollars profit. They are being paraded through the newsroom as a dog-and-pony show for the Justice Department.
"It doesn't get any more perverse than this."
Jim: While I respect your commitment to the First Amendment, I believe your interpretation is incorrect.
ReplyDeleteThe First Am. says: Congress shall make no law respecting ... (or) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
It does not say "Everyone has to print everything everyone else says."
You and I cannot violate the First Amendment, unless we're elected to Congress and make a federal law.
I - for one - will pass on being a Congressman.
Freedom of speech is a wonderful gift. Our need to understand it is critical.
Couple of thoughts:
ReplyDelete1. What sort of security do they have in Tucson where someone can go into a reporter's queue and retrieve unfinished stories? Allowing anyone to roam around in other peoples' queues is an invitation for legal tragedies. In our operation, only the IT geek has this power.
2. The minimal responsibility Jim had to the reporting profession was to make a phone call to Tucson to verify the accuracy of the document he received. I suspect but do not know if this column came into Jim in an e-mail with a Tucson return, but that would not relieve him from making the one phone call.