How Big Media Fools Itself

In a parallel with the MP's expenses debate, it could seem that some mainstream journalists from high status papers also forget why they exist - as Salon notes of the NYT's Maureen Dowd:

Maureen Dowd's wholesale, uncredited copying of a paragraph written by Josh Marshall (an act Dowd has now admitted) -- for what I yesterday called her "uncharacteristically cogent and substantive column"-- highlights a point I've been meaning to make for awhile. One of the favorite accusations that many journalists spout, especially now that they're searching for reasons why newspapers and print magazines are dying, is that bloggers and other online writers are "parasites" on their work -- that their organizations bear the cost of producing content and others (bloggers and companies such as Google) then unfairly exploit it for free.

Cough!

Here's the truth as far as this blog is concerned.

We get people copying stuff off here all the time, its not hard to spot if you are web savvy. The difference between bloggers and the mainstream media is the bloggers nearly always link back, or at least credit us. The mainstream media so far, (with one exception - thanks El Reg) do not.

These people then claim they are proper journalists. But "Journalism" here seems to be defined here as "copying other people's work without attribution", and these people are paid professionals. In other worlds this is called theft or plagiarism, and thus this practice is professional thievery. (See Tom Lehrer song on YouTube above for discussion on how it is done)

As with our "honourable" MP's, the stones flung at blogging from these "professionals" would be far more credible if their own house was in order.

(There is an emerging trend for very big blogs to no longer link, so clearly its not an "Olde media" thing but a "Big Media power corrupt" thing - in fact, its the Pro Journos who have crossed to blogging who seem to have the dodgiest morals)