I have stayed away from commenting here for quite some time, especially about this particular feud. But is NYU Local really claiming to have ownership of news?

Yeah, WSN sucks at having things first (which is really hard to do with print). But can you really kick back and say that WSN is stealing news from you? I got a press clipping about Mary Schmidt before NYU Local got the story. Did you somehow steal it from Organizing for America?

Give me a break.

And before anyone comes in to patronize me, I understand what linking is and why it’s important. I just think you’ll be hard-pressed to prove that WSN is stealing stories from you. Especially stories that are a big deal, like a President staying on, or a Dean leaving for Washington, or a bus stop that everyone and their mother has been asking for, or the fact that you can no longer really print for free.

Until WSN writes a piece on how to print without standing in line, I think this whole thing is a little foolish and a waste of energy.

This is a joke, right?

Lily, I should credit the link you put on your facebook for finding this!

@all readers- NYU Local contributors won’t be commenting on this post for a while. We’d like to leave it open for discussion by readers. Ideally, some who know about/are interested in online journalism will participate. An actual discussion instead of the same old talking points would be nice. *as opposed to just yet another place to bash one or the other.

Have to say I get a little disappointed to be reminded every time one of these posts comes out that the most interesting thing about nyu local is still that it isn’t wsn.

@Jordan and Joe
I don’t think they’re saying that they are the keepers of news. But when it comes to NYU-specific news that NYU Local reports first, WSN really should credit them like they would any other source.

And I think aside from that, the main issue really is that this supposed ‘feud’ (that I’m quite sick of too) that Sergio writes about is never going to be resolved unless WSN agrees to talk with NYU Local about the situation. I think they’d be doing us all a favor by agreeing to do so, so we don’t have to put up with this BS any longer.

I think one thing we can all agree on is that the quality of writing at the WSN, really basic things like syntax and grammar, is just embarrassingly terrible.

You should absolutely cite the source if you’re reprinting original reporting, but I’m not sure that’s what’s happening here.

All the NYU Local stories you cited in this post are based on mass e-mails and press releases that NYU sent out to everybody. I’m not sure reprinting them counts as original reporting, so that makes me question whether or not other publications have an obligation to link back to you.

On the other hand, Local has run some great original pieces based on original reporting, and those would definitely need to be linked to if another publication wanted to write about them.

I also think there’s just an inherent difference in form here. As a blog, NYU Local’s first obligation may be immediacy, which doesn’t always offer time to fully report out a story.

A print newspaper, meanwhile, has more time to do interviews and other research.

I’m kind’ve confused on what the issue is, here?
No news organization deserves credit on any story that isn’t based on their reporting. If WSN re-reports, and fact checks, a story, NYU Local doesn’t deserve any credit for breaking it.

I agree with all the previous comments.
You guys are Journalism students, shouldn’t you already KNOW this?!?!
Petty, petty, man.

Point of clarification @David Aragon- you make a solid point. but 3 of those 5 things didn’t come from press releases or mass mail.

“This is ethically necessary even if you only get the idea of a story from us, and then proceed to do your own reporting on the subject — it’s intellectual honesty to recognize, in words and links, your inspiration.”

Somehow I made it through NYU as a journalist without affiliating myself with either of these fine news organizations, and I have a serious question. Were WSN to report these stories completely on their own, without NYU Local’s “inspiration,” but then get scooped by a blog that has zero lead time, would they then be expected to link? It seems that these are, for the most part, stories that WSN would’ve gotten to on their own without any inspiration, albeit a few days later.

Believe me, I’m not defending WSN’s linking policy. Like the overwhelming majority of print publications, it sucks. Just looking for clarification on this point.

Even in the print world, attribution is taken quite seriously by outlets that have respect for themselves and for others.

If the New York Times conducts their own investigation based on an AP report, they will state that very clearly – online AND in the paper.

From a New York Times article:

—->”Dr. Keiji Fukuda, the W.H.O.’s top flu expert, told reporters in Geneva that the unabated progression of the disease had moved the agency closer to raising its pandemic alert from Phase 4 to Phase 5, indicating widespread human-to-human transmission, The Associated Press reported from Geneva.”

LINK

Take a look at the ongoing coverage about NYU’s increased printing costs: The Daily News wound up using a quote obtained by The New York Post, which got the story first, and even though the two tabloids have had a fierce rivalry for years, both sides have a respectable history of proper attribution:

From the Daily News article:

—> “We’re spending a s—load of money to go here, and they’re screwing us over. It sucks,” NYU student John Peter told the New York Post.

LINK

If the New York Times, the Daily News and the New York Post are ethical enough to acknowledge their sources, why can’t WSN do the same?

@Kate Jonas: What are you talking about? The NYT article and NY Daily News story you mention didn’t originally report those qoutes or statistics.
They are ethically bound to attribute where that reporting came from.
What is at question, at least in this open letter, is whether or not WSN should attribute where their story ideas came from — not their reporting, which is original.

this is why i preferred working for the plague.

Yeah – I for one remember all that awesome reporting that NYU Local did during those stupid protests. However, if these are the examples you guys are coming up with, I think this post makes you look very silly. “Breaking” is what Drudge does to a Lewinski scandal. “Breaking” is what TMZ does when it finds out Michael Jackson is dead. Until those stories are known to be completely true and fact, any news outlet can say “TMZ is reporting that…” and link to them, but a day later, no one will have to link to TMZ if they want to post an obituary for MJ.

Sexton staying on, a bus schedule changing, MSC working with Obama people? These are from press releases! They are not “your stories.” You do a report that sums up the press release, and 4 days later, WSJ has a post with a response from both Mary Schmidt Campbell and reactions from students. The reason why they are later than you is not because they are pilfering your posts, its because they are writing a story. They aren’t just simply breaking it.

I understand linking. I understand giving credit where credit is due. The day you guys uncover real news that was not sent to every @nyu.edu, you can break that story, and WSJ will have to report on the fact that you broke it.

Until then, remember talking about “journalism ethics” is usually not too necessary when reporting on bus schedules.

In the case of university news that is delivered via press release or school-wide announcement, no one owns the news. However, as the post says, it is a matter of intellectual honesty to acknowledge where your ideas came from when you do find them elsewhere. That, for anyone who has ever read a blog, is what the “via” or “h/t” link at the bottom of a post is.

A good portion of being a journalist is finding the news. That’s where, we believe, Local helps WSN, and online we believe this deserves notice. Then comes the original reporting and analysis.

Often, I’m sure WSN is working on a story simultaneously with NYU Local but because of our medium, our story is up first. In that case, no link is necessary. But it is statistically unlikely that this is the case every time.

For example, in cases like Charlie’s comparison of the California university occupation to TBNYU!, the idea seems to be ours and credit should be given, not for the web hits, but out of courtesy and again, intellectual transparency.

If WSN linked to NYU Local sometimes, it would be easier to believe that the times they don’t are because its news finding and reporting are all their own.

@Kate Jonas

Uh, because those papers are linking to things said specifically to those outlets, not to the general public?

@Nick Divers- Like I said earlier, Printing, UCSC and the bus route were not said to the general public. They were opinions and facts reported specifically by NYU Local before being communicated to the NYU community in any other large-scale public way.

@ Lily Q

The NYU website isn’t a large-scale public way?

@Nick Divers- if you really think that putting something on one of the 10,000 pages of the NYU website without making special indication of it is an easy-access method of finding information, I’m not sure what to say to you.

@Sean S: In answer to both of your posts: If another outlet has broken a story, reputable organizations WILL note that in subsequent reports, even if they conduct original reporting afterward.

Not all organizations have such a high standard. But they should. That’s the point of this discussion.

Case in point: The L.A. Times even used the very words “broke the story” in a blog post not too long ago. They could have just said, “according to radaronline.com,” without acknowledging that the site had gotten a scoop. But the L.A. Times took the high road.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2009/10/did-jon-gosselin-drain-the-joint-account-of-200-grand.html

You’re entitled to disagree with me. But I base my stance on practices employed by the world’s top news outlets – some of which I am closely affiliated with.

By the way, I’m not trying to troll, and I actually DID really love the TBNYU updates. I was refreshing that stuff at work every 5 minutes.

With the exception of the UCSB story (which could go either way, i suppose) I really don’t feel they “stole” anything from you. And this open letter business just seems like overkill. Even in the UCSB story, you were taking pre-released press and video, and though I’m glad you linked it, it doesn’t surprise me that they didn’t.

If I had a twitter that read emails, releases, and NYU’s website and wrote three word headlines like “printing costs $$$” “bus back on!” or “Sexton never dies!” I wouldn’t, nor would anyone, harp on you for not saying you were inspired by me.

WSN has always done a decent job of reporting on NYU stories, at least since I was there. If these things would’ve usually gone unreported, then I see your point. Just because NYU Local comes to the scene and can write things faster, I don’t think that means their longstanding organization is sentenced to credit all of their NYU based stories to you!

Let’s all just go out there and report the news! Or MAKE news! Let’s make some news!

@Kate Jonas

They are linking to Radar because it’s not up on Jon Gosselin’s site! It’s original content!

@Lily Q

The number of pages in the NYU website does not change the fact that they put information there that they want people to read and see.

Local is often accused of unnecessary snark, so we decided to be purposefully forthright and professional in this post. Because, as WSN Managing Editor Maryjane Weedman said, “I’m trying to run a newspaper, not start a war.”

These weren’t meant to be fightin’ words; trust me, this post would’ve been a lot nastier if that was the goal. The real goal is to stimulate some honest discussion about–okay, I’ll say it– the link economy, and to get WSN to finally acknowledge that we are a legitimate competitor (as a quick comparison of our site stats will confirm).

As this comments thread indicates, this is a very contentious issue, and as most journalism geeks can attest, one that is also hotly debated within the wider media sphere. Our little “war” here is a microcosm of the discussion that’s going on at large, and one of the ways we can facilitate a conversation about the shifting journalism landscape is by actively engaging in this kind of debate. This might seem ridiculous or unimportant to many, but to both organizations– which log hundreds of hours a week trying to create a readable product– this kind of conversation is absolutely imperative.

As Joe accurately stated, Local feels that if WSN gets an idea from our site that is original content, we should not even necessarily be credited with an “According to,” but at least have a h/t at the bottom. It’s common (n)etiquette.

I’d also like to clarify the ‘originality’ of our examples, here. We probably could have chosen some better ones, but there are a few here and elsewhere that were not in press releases or announced to the community at large. Printing, for example, was discovered by Lily when she actually went to 3rd North on the first day of classes and realized that she could no longer print for free. She then searched the NYU website to confirm this. No, she didn’t get a quote from John Beckman, but this is a form of ‘original reporting,’ and something that was not released as a notice to NYU students.

Beyond the examples in this post, there’s also the ResEd layoffs, which Charlie speculated on in May. I then did a follow-up, fully reported piece, outlining three sources, that went up in July. WSN reported this story a full two months later, without any acknowledgment whatsoever.

There is no old media ethical code that speaks specifically to this issue, but we feel it is out of minimal intellectual honesty that WSN at least acknowledges when our posts at all contribute to the work that they do on their site. We do this for them when they beat us first with ‘unoriginal’ content such as press releases, when we could just as easily write the post without their help. Obviously, as a newspaper, they are more committed to original reporting and hard news, and we respect them–and need them!– for that. But the relationship between our two organizations is going to continue to suffer if we don’t start having this kind of conversation.

I think a lot of the problem has to to with how WSN decides to print stories. As a former WSN photo editor, I had to sit through budget meetings and watch stories get cut or pushed back for later publication because of a lack of print space. Inevitably such stories would appear here first and then days later in the WSN. Maybe that’s why there has been a lot of cross-over in news coverage the past few weeks. I honestly do not know.

There is a more important issue at hand. Is it wise to publish a post about the “feud” between NYU Local and WSN? If you want to be considered credible and professional journalists, I don’t think so. Repeatedly taking public stabs at WSN’s gaffs and their alleged story stealing is not the way to go about it. You should take your gripes directly to the editors you have problems with – I am sure you know where the WSN office is.

I’ve always enjoyed the content NYU Local provided, even when I worked for WSN. In fact, I almost joined back at the pitch meeting nearly two years ago because I thought NYU Local was – and still is – a great idea (I eventually stayed at WSN – they paid). I can say that from the photo side of WSN, we’ve never really had any complaints about your publication. I can’t really speak for the writers, since we were separated in the newsroom (literally – there was a wall). Sure, there was occasional smack talk about NYU Local in the office, but it was always (and will remain) private. It’s like that at every news organization.

I still don’t understand why WSN and NYU Local can’t get over their differences (egos) and learn to co-exist, and maybe work together occasionally. It is truly disappointing, as I’m sure there have been times that we could have worked together. Reporting from NYU Local and photos from WSN during the TBNYU occupation comes to mind.

Having graduated last May, I read both NYU Local and WSN daily. It’s the only way I can keep up with what is happening at NYU aside from hearsay from friends. I think it is important to remember that you are putting out a product to inform the public, not to compete with someone else. Posting your problems with WSN not only alienates your readers, but wastes time that could have been spent reporting on something important. If both publications happen to post the same story, so what? I don’t see how that is necessarily a bad thing – one group is essentially validating the existence and work of another. Sure, you may not get credited, but take the higher road and know that they might like the work you do.

Obviously, this doesn’t represent the opinion of the WSN.

@Philippe: I don’t think the higher road, in this case, involves utter passivity when we’re being wronged.

More to the point, how does being transparent and openly airing our criticisms damage our credibility? I’d be more worried about WSN’s credibility if they continue the behavior that led to this post being published.

Since I have some experience with the Columbia version of this (I know, that’s not real New York, please don’t hurt me), I hope NYULocal readers don’t mind if I add some thoughts:

With respect to breaking or not breaking those particular stories, I can’t really comment too much on what stories NYULocal owned, and what they got from university press releases. I will say that “breaking” actually may sound more dramatic to the reader than to the journalist – that is to say, the commenters here seem to feel that “breaking” implies a degree of importance to the story, whereas (at least how I read it) I think NYULocal meant “breaking” in the “wrote it first” sense.

As for attribution and the print-internet relationship, I think Kate has mentioned an important point: quite often, print reports will credit the original source in the first story, if it’s a print/TV source. They rarely do so if it’s a website (Drudge and Politico being the only two exceptions I can think of off the top of my head). I do think a degree of dismissiveness is involved in that standard, but I also think that that will change as more good reporting is done online.

Finally, all that being said in the previous paragraph, it’s interesting to see the approach WSN has taken with stories first written about on NYULocal. Typically, at Columbia, we and Spec cede stories to each other – whoever gets there first gets to write about it. There are many stories that we could repeat from each other, but we choose not to. If there’s an impossible-to-avoid story, I will say that we’ve credited Spec (Barack Obama and John McCain coming to Columbia), even though they don’t credit us on similar stories (Ann Coulter coming to Columbia). But by-and-large, we’ve both found that there’s enough news to report, enough good writers, and enough readers who know to read both for neither of us to need to repeat the other. And since y’all are the real New York school, surely there’s enough news to report for WSN to have new news, rather than what’s been online for days. That’s my one critique, and now I’ll just go back to hiding inside the Columbia gates.

@Jessica Roy

Don’t stop the snarkiness! It’s what makes blogs cool. It’s that flying by the seat of the pants, caution to the wind attitude that makes reading them much more fun. It’s probably one of the reasons that your site is doing well compared to WSN. (Congrats for that, btw)

You are also getting more readers because of your ability to report things quicker, too, no doubt. (I know that I value news that comes quick rather than news that comes with an opinion from someone standing on the street). But as a snarky, quicker, more agile blog, it makes no sense for you to bring these bad examples to our attention, tone down the snarkiness, and try to make a legitimate issue out of this. I am glad that Lily found out about the lack of free printing by herself, on her own, but this is something that I’m sure a bunch of other people realized, even if they didn’t see it addressed on NYU’s site. When I was in school, we were always scoping out the places to print for free! Maybe it wasn’t released as an official notice email, but it’s something that I’m sure a bunch of people noticed. If you report on a RUMOR that they might erase all free printing in fall 2009, then yes, you have different rights, should WSN choose to also investigate.

Let’s consider the free printing as a fire on campus. If Lily is there first and says “Oh shit! A Fire!” and then WSN sees your website that says there is a fire on campus, they will probably also run down and say “Oh shit! that’s IS a fire!” But they will not have to report on something that the entire student body could’ve seen and give you a link to the article.

No, they won’t. And you wouldn’t need to send an open letter. You would just start slowly taking away readers from them because you are serving up a faster product.

I don’t think this relationship between you two is suffering. If anything, it pushes you both to have greater standards.

Obviously this is just a battle of egos! it’s a shame! That’s why you guys are saying “We are going to leave this forum open to debate” and you can’t help but pop in and defend yourselves.

@ Ned Resnikoff

Because it comes across as whining and it makes the NYU community look bad.

It’s only passivity if you are actually being wronged.

http://jeffbaum.tumblr.com/post/206165425/the-battle-of-nyu

I can’t wait until WSN breaks the story “NYU Local staff are self-important drama queens” and finally does you guys right by linking to this post!

And when are you going to stop implying that your witty brand of Gossip Girl reviews constitute as journalism?

Feud schmeud.

@Ned: I never said you had to be passive. Go to the 8th floor of the Fairchild building and talk with Rachel or Mary-Jane about your problems. I’m sure they would be willing to sit down and talk. Worse case scenario you could take a page out of the TBNYU book and occupy the office space (which would be hilarious from a news perspective).

I honestly believe that this problem could have been solved privately if editors from both publications met and talked about it in person, rather than making attacks on the internet. Had things not worked out from there, then I believe this post would be warranted. But there’s no indication that any such talks have happened.

@ Jessica Roy: Why would you need WSN to acknowledge your existence if your site stats can prove it? Your readers do that for you, and at the end of the day that is more important.

I don’t think the issue here is whether or not WSN *can* write original articles on stories that have already been reported by NYULocal. Obviously, they can, and WSN probably doesn’t just “steal” them from Local.

I think the more relevant issue is that because WSN and NYULocal are the only two online news sources for the NYU “community”, that it should be expected of both of them to monitor each other’s stories and provide links to to the other news outlet if they decide to run a repeat article.

Because, as Lily states, “It’s no secret that [WSN] read[s] NYU Local every day, just as we do your publication.”

Go outside, you dorks.

I was totally ready to come here and rip on WSN, but David made me stop for a second:

“All the NYU Local stories you cited in this post are based on mass e-mails and press releases that NYU sent out to everybody”

Yeah. They’re a print paper and kind of slow in general, and they’re gonna write about NYU press releases anyway. Really, the protocol is to link up a “Via [bla bla]” at the beginning or end of your post, but if they’re getting it “via press release” then I think there isn’t a big deal here.

Maybe NYU Local should just pat itself on the back for having quicker turnarounds than WSN.

To be really honest, you guys need to realize that people do not really give a fuckin’ shit.

Like a wise man once said, “Go outside, you dorks.” Please do. And get laid while you are at it.

@Shreshth: Because being interested in stuff isn’t cool… Life is all about bangin’ hot chicks. Is that better?

To be honest, linking to an alternate source that’s broken the same story at the end of the article benefits everyone, most importantly the reader. I disagree with how this argument as been presented on this site, because I sincerely doubt that WSN has actually pulled information from NYU Local without attributing, but I do think that, if there is an awareness that a similar article has been printed on NYU Local, WSN should link back, and vice versa.

Because… why not?

@Damon Beres

I think everything you said was very wise. However, I don’t think that they need to be cross-linking just for the greater good. I think keeping the two in actual competition is still useful. NY Post and Daily News, to keep using that example, don’t just link to each other’s stories. It’s kinda like saying that McDonald’s menu should say that there’s also a Wendy’s right down the street. Would it benefit the fast-food lover? Would it be convenient for the customer? Yes, but the one point that some people in this forum are missing is that just because you wish things were done a certain way – that doesn’t mean that it should change.

If you have a tumblr, or a blog, and you are taking other people’s photos and posting them as your own, you should put up a “via” link and send traffic back to the creator so that you are not taking traffic away from their creation. Two competing news outlets should not feel the need to show their readers how someone else is also reporting the same stuff. Right?

The examples of the NY Post/Daily News and McDonald’s/Wendy’s doesn’t work for me, because they are money-making juggernauts, and NYU Local and WSN are not. They’re student publications that have absolutely no reason to be at odds with each other.

I think you guys have a point and I feel your frustration, but I’m inclined to say this stuff should be kept private.

@ Nick Divers

First of all, this forum IS open for debate, and there’s no reason Local contributors shouldn’t be able to participate in that debate. The point is to inspire discussion between blogger/commenter etc. It’s also especially important that we clarify when people are lobbing claims that are legitimately factually inaccurate, so that the level of discourse doesn’t sink to fighting over things that just aren’t true.

I understand what you’re saying here, but I guess I just fundamentally disagree re: linking. If Lily discovers there’s no more free printing, that is FINDING the news, which is a huge part of online journalism. If WSN finds it because of us, they should link. It doesn’t matter if they “could” have found out about it through another channel– if we are the primary source that tipped them off, they should at the very least give us a “hat tip.” This is obviously not standard print journalistic practice, and I think a lot of people are trying to compare it to that. We know our traditional print ethics– this is an issue outside of that, and one that we believe is newly important with the rise of online journalism. I guess this idea is just embedded in me from blogging culture; I would never write about a piece I found online without linking to it, even if I also heard about it from one of my friends. Should we stop linking to WSN when we hear about something from them and then do our own reporting on it? That would be easy to do, but it’d be silly to refuse to acknowledge that the other campus news source commented on it first.

It’s strange to me that this became such a giant shitstorm, because that wasn’t the intention AT ALL. What we really wanted was to get WSN’s attention so that people like Sergio can stop posting things like “NYU Local/WSN duel” and we can start to produce content in a much friendlier environment. We also wanted to use this as an example of a greater debate about “the link economy” and online journalism ethics. See this post from Nieman Lab for a similar situation happening outside of NYU.

I completely agree with you that competition can push both publications to produce better content, but we’re never going to get anywhere until WSN acknowledges our existence. Until then, it’s like competing with a ghost.

@Philippe Teston

It’s not just about the hits, it’s about the fact that, though we may have differing philosophies on how to approach reporting the news, we are, on a very fundamental level, trying to do the same thing: deliver things we feel are important into the consciousness of the NYU community. We respect the work that WSN does, which is why when we get a story idea from them, we automatically link–even if we also do additional reporting for it. I think both of our publications have a lot to learn from each other, but we can’t do that until WSN actually admits that we’re a competitor and communicates with us beyond vague tweets. It’s just immature; we’re trying to be transparent and honest here, so that we can move beyond this bullshit ‘duel’ and actually start to find ways that we can learn from each other. We’ve tried to reach out to WSN in other ways, but have been categorically rejected. We felt that, in light of Sergio’s post, it was better to air our grievances, address the issues that have very much been boiling beneath the surface, stimulate a discussion, and then finally move on.

Unfortunately this post may have been a disservice to our readers in the sense that no—nobody beyond WSN or journalism geeks should genuinely give a shit about what we say here. For that, we apologize, and direct you to other, less serious pieces, like this one about adorable pets.

I’m genuinely a bit curious (and excuse me if this has been discussed, I didn’t read every comment here): what, other than the fact that WSN has sometimes run a story about the same thing as NYU Local a couple of days after the fact, leads you to believe that WSN is actually getting any information from your articles?

(I’m not really taking any side here – I do think there should be sweet, sweet journalistic harmony between the two publications, attributions and hyperlinks spilling from teat to gullet like sumptuous love fluids – but I think part of why this has become such an argument is that this “open letter” kind of came out of left field and seems reactionary to an issue that isn’t really all that clear to anyone but the people handling the content that is published on either site.)

@Jessica

Why do you care if WSN recognizes you? I understand why you would want them to, but I don’t understand why you would feel the need to express that or lobby for that publicly on your site. I also don’t think that they need to “acknowledge you” in order for you to feel like you’re not competing with a ghost. That’s silly talk. Their lack of awknowledgment just makes them seem even more outdated and disillusioned. I think it actually works in your favor! The second they start acting like a blog and posting quickly and linking to you and stuff, you might get a small spike in traffic, but there goes the kind of reporting that makes you guys unique. Ha.

And yeah! I do think you should be able to comment on your own paper, I was just referring to Lily stating that the blog writers “won’t be commenting on this post for a while. We’d like to leave it open for discussion by readers.”

I’m happy for Lily’s reporting and her obvious passion about the news. I’m glad shes doing what she loves doing. And I don’t think that she doesn’t deserve credit for finding it first. What I DO think, is that when things are available publicly, you CANNOT prove that WSN stole the news from you. Let’s look at the logistics behind this! Lily found out about the printing AS A STUDENT of NYU, not as an investigative reporter, which also means that, by pure probability, she was not the first person to find out this information. Now, given the WSN has reported on all NYU news since their inception, it’s hard for me to believe that they weren’t also preparing a story at the same time. And even if they weren’t, if they are 4 days behind you, it makes it look even less like they troll your site looking for things to steal. If they are posting articles 15 minutes after yours that offer up NO additional original material, THEN you have reason to talk about linking economys and online journalism ethics. Like, for example, the whole John Mayer/Smoking Gun/TMZ thing:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0827091mayer1.html

THAT is a legitimate linking issue. THAT needs to be publicly stated.

Reasons why:
1. There is a 7 minute difference in the two posts.
2. The post includes investigative data that could not be found at any other public outlet.

So that’s basically what I mean. There is no evidence here that they stole something from you because all of these things they reported on after you was all reported on through other publicly available sources. Though it would be nice for them to acknowledge you reported on it first, it is not at all necessary!

Run your blog well, report on things quickly, keep producing some bangin’ original content, and you may soon have double WSN’s traffic. You seem like you are well on your way, which presents even less reason for you guys to complain about lack of attention from them, right? I’m sure your readers are smart enough to figure out for themselves who is doing a better job of reporting the news.

@ Nick Divers

Okay, I really don’t have the energy to argue with you about this anymore. I guess agree to disagree.

And now, back to producing some bangin’ original content.

This is part of the Duke University Student Guidelines (http://library.duke.edu/research/citing/plagiarism.html and http://library.duke.edu/research/plagiarism/), but I think it applies to this situation as well:

“It is appropriate to think of the university as a vast society of influences, composed of various formal sites of critical discussion, reporting, and debate, both verbal and written. University persons—both scholars and students—gain status and authority by dint of their intellectual involvement in written and verbal exchange [...] Since the university values the public thinking of its faculty and students, it requires that its members formally recognize who has made which sorts of statements in what settings. [...] Not to formally recognize the work and influences of others in your writing is to plagiarize, violating an ethic of mutual regard.”

And later:

“On occasion, students accused of plagiarism have claimed that their plagiarism has occurred without their knowledge or intent.” This is what a large part of the counter-argument to Lily’s post seems to be; it’s not like WSN actually got their ideas from NYU Local, even though they read this blog and saw the story on here first! After all, they did their own research/reporting, so they don’t have to credit back to us, right?

Oops, no, that’s plagiarism. “Since ignorance of convention is not a reasonable defense, it is best to become thoroughly acquainted both with the various ways in which plagiarism is construed, and with the conventions of source attribution and proper documentation. Some students seem to believe that there are different degrees of plagiarism, some not as a bad as others.”

And what is the definition of plagiarism? No, it’s not just copying a paper you found online:

“Plagiarism occurs when a student, with intent to deceive or with reckless disregard for proper scholarly procedures, presents any information, ideas or phrasing of another as if they were his/her own and/or does not give appropriate credit to the original source.”

So. If Joe Obsolete reads a story on NYU Local about free printing in a given computer lab, then makes some phone calls and gets an official university statement about it and writes his own story for the paper he writes for (WSN), he STILL HAS TO GIVE CREDIT TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. Nobody “owns” the news, but yes, people “own” the way that news is created. This is why journalism is an industry and not an art.

Comparing a story about NYU transportation to someone yelling about a fire is such a stretch that the analogy pulled a hamstring.

@ Josh

if you can prove they found out about the stories here and only here, then yes, you are right.

My analogy pulled a hamstring? How about your analogy of plagiarism to journalism? Stealing an idea is certainly one thing, reporting on campus happenings is not stealing ideas, dude. It’s called writing for a paper. It’s especially not stealing ideas if they are coming from websites and press releases. You linking to Duke’s (AH, DUKE! Of all schools!) plagiarism policy is way more pretentious than I ever thought this debate could get.

Do you not realize that no one here other than NYU Local is agreeing with you? And other people around the internet are saying how stupid NYU kids are? I don’t care how self-righteous you are, your determination to feel like you are right is making you look quite silly, and not just in my eyes.

@ Jessica

Yes, I think we should agree to disagree. When I got linked to this article, I was really ready to shake my head at how stupid WSN is and how awesome new media is. I root for you guys, and I actually come to your site. I haven’t been to WSN since I was in school, and even then it was mostly because of links my mother was sending me haha.

I think your “best roof talk ever” tumblr is far more pretentious than any of us could ever hope to be, chief.

@ Josh

haha what? what are you talking about there, brohan?

Your mom goes to college.

(Joke is via Napoleon Dynamite. Buy the movie here: http://www.amazon.com/Napoleon-Dynamite-Jon-Heder/dp/B00005JNBQ)

@Nick Divers- actually, everyone who knows about internet journalism is agreeing with us. Neiman, Harvard’s journalism lab, for example: http://twitter.com/NiemanLab/status/4665524993

@Lily

Ah! Newyorkshitty.com is an AWESOME blog. I found out so much about my old landlords there. It convinced me not to pay my last month’s rent for fear of losing my deposit. (go there and search greenpoint management. pretty shady stuff.)

And no, Lily, I still don’t agree with this, and like Jessica said, let’s just agree to disagree. I am not going to talk in circles and continue to bring up the same points. I could go on and on about how a small Brooklyn blog known for uncovering housing management scandals attracting the attention of a large Manhattan Juggernaut paper is slightly different than two competing NYU blogs who are arguing about who gets to report on releases and emails first, but I’m not going to.

It was obvious from my first comment that you guys love your blog, you want more attention for it, you have no interest in opening up a public discussion about this issue, and that’s just fine. Just call it like it is.

So yeah. See you around I guess.

[...] I wrote, and the feedback I’ve received has actually been, surprisingly, quite positive. And it sparked, in my opinion, a valuable discussion about the issues plaguing NYU Local and WSN. Issues which the [...]

“It was obvious from my first comment that you guys love your blog, you want more attention for it, you have no interest in opening up a public discussion about this issue, and that’s just fine. Just call it like it is.”

No interest in public discussion? 54 comments says you’re wrong.

Sorry, Henry

I should have worded that “letting the public have a discussion.”

[...] that haven’t caught wind of this. A few days back, NYU Local, the upstart publication at NYU, accused the Washington Square News of pilfering their posts without attribution. They found five examples of where NYU Local originally reported the story, only to have Washington [...]