Larisa Alexandrovna-MSM Plagiarism Strikes Again

(Kpete-I have special permission to Post The WHOLE THING & Strongly recommend it to all DUers!!!)

MSM Plagiarism Strikes Again – AP Welcome to the Party

Larisa Alexandrovna



There are many things that bother me about plagiarism, but nothing irks me more than when a mainstream reporter (or organization) with all of the resources of a small nation at their disposal lifts from the small press, freelance journalists, and bloggers.


AP vs. Raw Story


Case in Point is my article on the new guidelines for security clearances.

The process of how I put this story together is important as it provides a brief glimpse into the amount of work and time I put into this research.

I got a tip in the form of a 2005 document that was issued "quietly" out of National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley's office, in which guidelines for issuing security clearances as well as access to government information had been updated from the Clinton administration's version.

I had to contact officials at the State Department, experts at think tanks, and several intelligence agencies to find out if a). the document was authentic, and b). if there was anything glaringly wrong with it (aside from the obvious bizarre sexual behavior parameters). I did authenticate it, but most people I spoke with thought it was largely unchanged from the previous set of guidelines. I wondered what the two documents side by side might show and what, if any, differences there were.

The 2005 Hadley document, as it turns out, is a revision of the 1997 "Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information," and the differences, while subtle, are fascinating. But what is important about the differences in terms of my issue with the mainstream press is how long it took me to catalogue those differences.

In order to identify changes, I had to put the 1997 and 2005 documents side by side and go line by line, noting in a spreadsheet the text of one and the other, and then noting what the change was, if any. This was a long, tedious, and frankly boring task.

Once I had concluded my initial comparison, I sent my work to another writer and asked them to compare as well, in case I missed anything. My findings were supported by the other writer's own comparison. I then sent everything to my editor, who had one of our researchers do a quick overview, also supporting what I found. My editor and I then co-authored an article, after nearly two weeks of work, about the Hadley changes. The piece covered and overview of the most questionable changes, as there were many subtle changes in general. One key area we focused on was what appeared to be the relaxing of sexual discrimination guidelines.

The article can be found HERE.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/U.S._quietly_tightens_access_to_classified_0313.html,%20March%2013,%202006

In response, several GLBT groups contacted us and issued a statement. We gave the advocacy groups our notes and article, which they then took to the AP and demanded that the story be covered. The AP was given our article and maybe our notes.

On March 14, 2006, the AP did their own article, left out any attribution to me or my publication and lifted not only my research but also whole sections of my article for their own (making cosmetic changes of course).

We contacted an AP senior editor and ombudsmen both and both admitted to having had the article passed on to them, and both stated that they viewed us as a blog and because we were a blog, they did not need to credit us. What we are or are not is frankly irrelevant. What is relevant is that by using a term like blog to somehow excuse plagiarism, the mainstream press continues to lower the bar for acceptable behavior. It need not matter where the AP got the information, research, and actual wording from. What matters is that if they use it in part or in whole, they must attribute properly. A blog or a small press publication or grads students working in the corner of a library all equally deserve credit for their work, period.

Unfortunately this is far too common and has happened to me and to other writers and bloggers far too frequently. This time, however, we made a point of tape recording the AP apparatchiks admitting to taking our work and using it without attribution, stating "we do not credit blogs".

While they will not credit us in any way; they will instead credit advocacy groups, as though that somehow excuses them from having to attribute rightfully. This is what their first article on the documents' said: "Lesbian and gay advocacy groups recently found the change in an 18-page document distributed by National security adviser Stephen Hadley on Dec. 29, without public notice." Yes, they groups had found it in my article, which they gave to the AP.

Yet, even after the advocacy groups reminded the AP of where they got the information, the news organization would not provide attribution.

Here are again, links to both articles:http://rawstory.com/news/2006/US_quietly_tightens_access_to_classified_0314.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/03/14/national/w154225S14.DTL

Raw Story, March 13, 2006 and AP, March 14, 2006 (mind you, this is syndicated, so the plagiarism is compounded)

I had hoped to resolve the quietly and privately, but the AP's refusal to make a correction has become almost secondary to the real outrage of what is occurring in the mainstream. The argument is astounding really if not entirely antithetical to journalistic standards. What the AP and others are saying essentially is that, while "your work" is good enough for us to steal, you are not credible enough to cite.

We do not credit blogs!

Never mind that plenty of journalists have blogs or that Raw Story is not a blog, or that the mainstream will cite blogs such as the Huffington Post while inexplicably not smaller blogs that have become heroic in the world of journalism for what they have uncovered. I have a nagging feeling that what this random sourcing is about has less to do with freelance journalists or blogs or any other label de jour, but rather, it has everything to do with who can afford to take legal action. Clearly, they have pegged me correctly as not in any position to take on a major news organization.

----HAT TIP Moment----

Some examples of the not credited or not nearly credited enough:

-ePlurbis Media, which uncovered the whole Jeff Gannon story
http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/

-Democratic Underground, which has one of the best organized research forums online
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=358

-The Left Coaster's erieposte, which has put together perhaps the best Niger forgery research there is
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/005211.php

- Next Hurrah's emptywheel who has done some fantastic research into the Plame leak
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/contributoremptywheel/index.html

-Brad Blog's Brad Friedman, who has exposed Diebold's election tampering more than anyone else
http://www.bradblog.com/

- Luke at Wot is it Good 4,http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/ who has researched the Sibel Edmond's case so closely and tracked things so accurately (using nothing more than open source), that in my opinion and in terms of what I understand regarding the case, he is closer than anyone to the truth of it (minus some things and reorganizing other things).


These are but a few examples of blogs that rival if not surpass the MSM. There are many more and I am sorry if I have left anyone out, but there are too many to list.

------

I will say that the we contacted several publications syndicating this story and only the Washington Blade ran a correction attributing us: So thanks WB! http://washblade.com/2006/3-17/news/national/stealth.cfm

-----

All of that said, what type of press do citizens of a democracy want and what type of press do they deserve? Does a democracy want a self-indulgent, politically infiltrated, corrupted, and willfully lazy press or do we deserve that kind of press because we do not rage against it?

The corporations have their press and they will protect their writers despite egregious violations of journalistic standards. Need I remind anyone of "DMS is old news" talking point every mainstream organization took on after having falsely led us into war with bogus reporting to begin with?

You want a free press? Protect your small press writers/journalists (also those in MSM who have the guts to do their job), bloggers, editors, and publications. Protect them not only from such unethical behavior as demonstrated by the AP, but also from all manner of assault in which either political motivations or greed, if not both, are more important than the truth. Gary Webb may have had a job had the mainstream political attack dogs not driven him into darkness and into taking his own life. Judith Miller may not have had a chance to author lie after lie, had she been fired and exposed from the beginning. Helen Thomas would not be making news for simply asking questions, had the corporate owned media actually been doing its job, namely asking those same questions all along.

How many more honest journalists have to be driven out because they can no longer afford to pay their bills? I don't want to know. Do you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/msm-plagiarism-strikes-ag_b_17873.html

Good post!

I am moving farther and farther toward the belief that free press is one of the most precious qualities of a free people. People must have access to facts. They must have access to opinions. They must have the ability to analyze both in order to construct a reality that is important to them.

unacceptable. 'Being a blog' excuses it for them? Bullshit.

I have had enough of this crap, unless they want to pay bloggers and freelance journalists for their time and work, this shit has to stop!

Go get 'em!!!

In that case, publishers tried to argue that reprinting freelancers' articles online didn't count for purposes of copyright infringement.

The publishers lost. Electronic publication IS considered publishing, as the Tasini case proved and a case I'm involved in confirmed. A blog is an electronic publication, and this is clearly infringement on its face.

Nice to see you can use the publishers' own arguments against them. ;-)

You get paid for your work, so you've clearly suffered damages by the infringement.

I've sent you names of some good attorneys who handle copyright litigation via private mail. Go nail the bastards!

Miriam

somewhat, and I think you are entirely correct.

use some NY Daily News stories which pertain to myself,(I was the subject)? I don't understand "fair use". Am I allowed to scan and link several (10) newspaper articles about me onto my journal page? I really like to know for back in Dec. I spoke to the copyright editor at the Daily News and he sort of threatened me with a letter if I were to use any reported materials. So since then I haven't added to my story "screwedbyRudy" because I was scared off.
Any answers any suggestions would help me..

thanks.,,

DemInDistress

But I have had need to read copyright law in detail.

"Fair use" relates to use of materials for news reporting, and some educational uses. A lot of leniency is given to educational purposes, but the definition of educational is strict and narrow... you pretty much have to be an institution. Claiming that one's website is 'educational' will not fly.

Legitimately, you cannot scan and post an entire article (unless you obtain permission from the copyright holder), even if it's about you. You can post an excerpt (just as DU permits a four-paragraph excerpt). But you can certainly give a link to the entire article.

Many people wrongly think that they can copy whatever, as long as they are not making money from it. That is not true. Money only enters the picture if the copyright holder sues, then damages may be judged on monetary damages to the infringed party and if the infringer profited. $ matters are beside the point, in regard to the actual law.

Fact of the matter is that copyright infringement is rampant, especially with the internet. Chances of getting sued are microscopic, BUT... if the copyright holder files an infringement statement with your website host, following particular procedures, your site can be shut down immediately and without warning.

'Scamdy' (if you recall that sewer) got shut for some while just that way.

The U.S. Copyright Office has all the laws and regulations online. It's kinda fascinating reading, if one is interested in it, and also really, really boring!

Its just those reasons you mentioned which keep me from posting those stories. I was under the impression anyone can scan and link a copyrighted article as long as it was "fair use". I once again feel stymied. I could mention the news site but someone would have to pay to see the story.
You say, even though the article was about me I still have no legal standing. Also, it wasn't about making money but to inform people of the ruthlessness of King Rudy the Tyrant.
Do you think I could get away with 4 paragraphs? I'd read the Copyright Office site except when you say,"boring" i already feel defeated..

thanks TW good answer to my question !!:hi: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :yourock:

Too bad ya called the copyright editor... shoulda stayed "blissfully ignorant" and no one would likely have known! Linking is likely to keep you out of the mire, too... sorry they are pay sites, but you can warn your readers so they don't get frustrated. You can pick the most pertinant graphs and <snip> between. You can decribe what is in the articles, as long as you use your own words. You can also use some quotes from the articles, as long as they are in quotation marks.

But with 10 articles, 4 graphs from each, I think you can draw a pretty clear picture. ???

I wasn't indicating that you were wanting to profit, I just threw that point in, because my pet peeve is that so many people misunderstand and assume they can copy stuff as long as they aren't making any money. I am just eccentric over the issue & hoped to educate others a bit.

I agree, that seem doable, 4 paragraphs and a description in quotes. I should have told you this at first, when I spoke to the copyright editor he said," I can use those articles in full for a nominal fee of 50 dollars" I didn't have the cash plus there are 10 articles from the Daily News.
Your suggestions should work out well, I will soon give that a try. Back in Dec. when I called I was thrown a curve ball from the editor and it depressed me so mcuh I shut down for awhile. As I continue to hear about America's Mayor King Rudy the Tyrant I want to begin again to write about that awful episode in my life. Do the right thing and get trashed in the press, fortunately some high profile journalists took Rudy to task for bashing me publicly, they made him look like the bad guy. I had some muscle in my corner.

thanks again TW..

Dem..

But the pen will probably continue to be your strongest weapon, wherever you point it.


:thumbsup:

Is this not, in part, a simple question of copyright? And is that not an easy case to prove?

Thank you.

Thank you Larisa. Sue them.

for the first time in human history the people control the free flow of information not those who own the press and their next move is to find a way to stop it.

"Freedom of the press belongs to the (blog) that owns one."

And *they* cannot stand the truth.

I watch MSM occassionally and some have gotten more courageous lately, but every once in awhile I hear something that just floors me.

Was it CSpan or CNN or some interview with a repuke on MSNBC? Anyway, they were talking about how the "Print Media" makes up lies and how terrible it is that they do that. Of course I thought it ironic that the repuke was speaking the "truth" in order to make the lies he was telling to support covering up the lies that had been told "appear truthful".

Interesting thing is that even if AP outright stole this article, it shows that MSM is at least waking up to the fact that the PEOPLE are sick and tired of the Bushit. We want REAL news --- and they know where to find it, but MSM is still afraid to be seen giving credit to the people on the front lines. INDY Media is becoming the competittion - a force to be reckonned with.

I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but it's also like Ghandi said, "First the ignore you, then they insult you, then they fight you, then you win." I think as awful as it is for the people being plagurized, it's wonderful for the PEOPLE because we pay attention to the blogs and MSM knows we do and their little theft is a sure sign of Ghandi's "...then you win."

The story got to MSM where it belonged. They still had to play dirty because they wouldn't recognize honesty if it bit them in the ass, but the STORY got out there where it belonged.

Looking back nearly a year ago when I attended a Media Fair in MN and asked the panel if they agreed with Reese Schoenfeld Co-founder of CNN who had said that "It is the media's job in a time of war to lie for the government." I was asked if he had really said that. I told them, "Yes, he said it live on MSM's Big Story with John Gibson." Only one rep from MSM was at that fair... the reader's ombudsman from the STRIB. The STRIB began to turn around a bit. Allowing more dissent.

Schoenfeld has gotten more cagey. He attacked George Clooney's "Good Night and Good Luck" by comparing FAUX News' brand of "people's advocacy journalism" to Edward R Murrow's.

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/10/11/fox_begins_attack_on_george_clooney_film_about_murrow.php

There's not much I *can* do, but as a copy editor at a newspaper I promise to be vigilant for stories at my paper that have previously broken on blogs and make sure they are credited.

:hug: hang in there.

Good luck, hon.

Also, have you passed this along to Editor & Publisher?

And, what I was orginally going to post was this: BULLSHIT they don't need to credit blogs.

They need to credit, as you rightly point out, ANYONE and EVERYONE responsible for the work AND/OR research AND/OR writing. We don't need to credit blogs is just a convenient LIE. Just a fucking lie.

And yes, it's about who can afford lawyers -- tho there are surely organizations who can assist here?? -- but it's also about keeping small press and journalists in their place, not known or visited. YOU ARE A THREAT to them, of COURSE they don't want to credit you. I really think this is the much bigger issue, EVEN IF it's a largely subconscious one (and it might be).

Let's fight this. This is baloney and garbage and a betrayal of the copyright laws, etc.

So I don't know what I am allowed to post with regard to names. I will ask. I think the ombudsman is named in their corporate info though, no?

for printing a LETTER scamming seniors sent by a right-wing outfit (who obviously thought a BLOG counted as a publication), yet AP thinks you don't.

DAMne dif you do, damned if you don't.

Sue them all!

They might not agree, but as it's their bailiwick they should certainly cover it.

As an example of good behavior, you can point them to Walter Pincus. He recently credited the War and Piece blog in his article on MZM and CIFA.

--

There is nothing worse than the arrogance of any so-called journalism organization which refuses to attribute or recognize the sources for information. If there is one thing I have noticed when reading the blogs, they understand the rules of attribution enough to usually give each other credit. . .and for the AP to attempt to claim they have some kind of public domain privilege to NOT attribute their sources is both an affront to the ethics of the profession and an act of professional suicide. You can bet the writer of that AP story expects to be given credit when that article is used in papers, scholarly works or cited in other publication stories.

Perhaps what a good blogger should do is creatively make up a story and get the cooperation of fellow bloggers and then FEED it to the Associated Press. . .and then when the AP doesn't do any fact checking of its own, publishes the account as its own original work, and sends it all over the world, we can watch their credibility disappear when the entire story is proven to be false.

more of standard operating procedure than I could of ever imagined. Google searches and Lexis/Nexis searches on stories turn up all sorts of overlap in storyline/wording via different authors.


and as a graduate student I can tell you I only wish my words were published under my name. I suppose its a power issue. AP perhaps see it as a win-win. Reduce operating costs, settle with no notice, and continue on. Who would believe a graduate student over their advisor, raw story over the AP?

She is doing a fantastic job. I hope she continues.

These bastards deserve to be nailed. Hope you can swing a legal challenge.

K&R

What a piss poor excuse, "you're a blog" so no credit.

Frankly, I wish AP would plagerize any of my articles, word for word.
Just forget who I am, take it and run. But writing is not my business
and I'm cool with it (sort of;)

Raw Story is an internet news publication, not a blog. So is "Scoop." Anyone with a
few functioning brain cells knows that.

Keep up the great work!

The corporate media is not to be trusted on any matter. Period.

this will bring it to the attention of folks who can help you. I wonder if Electronic Freedom Foundation and other Internet Advocacy legal groups can start to focus attention on this or if Editor and Publisher would be willing to help.

Perhaps it's time that "Internet Free Press" formed it's own "Press Guild" with a legal fund. Given the sorry state of the MSMedia this problem is only going to get worse. The lazy stenographers they employ can feel free to use unattributed sources,talking points from think tanks plus direct copy from Rove but refuse to credit those out there who are doing real research because they can get away with it.

Keep up the good work!

of repugnant-can thievery - republicans stealing something because they can. In this case preying on the defenseless which is a classic method of operation for these bottom dwellers.

It is not an issue of right or wrong to them. It's an exercise in exerting their will and power. Self actualization gone bad.

then sue their asses. If it's already copyrighted, get an IPR lawyer and go for the jugular.

Great work as usual Larisa!

I have a feeling someone will step up and help you out.

I guess in a way you should be flattered. The MSM is lazy. They wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit them in the ass, but when a whole advocacy group comes to them and demands a story be done, at least they are listening to that.

About a year ago, CNN's Reese Schoenfeld was saying it is the "Media's job to lie during times of war on behalf of the government." He was wrong about that and he's wrong about other things too. (1)

About a year ago, it took the STRIB in MN a whole month to finally have the balls to cover the Downing Street Memo and they were one of the first papers in the country to touch it after the original Washington Post article.

Thank you for showing the MSM what it means to be a patriot and what it means to be a member of the Fourth Estate. I hope you nail AP to the wall so the world can view them like the insectoid they are.

In specific, I also blame them for their cowardice in not accurately covering the deaths of Journalists in Baghdad that William Pitt researched and showed fairly conclusively was a warning to Journalists everywhere to play ball or be killed.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/022505A.shtml


If you are smeared and defamed and defrauded at this time in history, at least you are in the company of the best in this nation who are also being persecuted, maligned even murdered to protect the lies and the lying liars that tell them.

God bless you and protect you from harm and may you be justly rewarded for your service to this country once the grownups are once again in charge of America.






(1) He said George Clooney's Good Night and Good Luck would have a limited viewing, maybe a million viewers.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=goodnightandgoodluck.htm

As of today:

TOTAL LIFETIME GROSSES
Domestic: $31,558,003 61.8%
+ Foreign: $19,534,564 38.2%

---------------------------------

= Worldwide: $51,092,567

:thumbsup:

Cripes

The argument is astounding really if not entirely antithetical to journalistic standards. What the AP and others are saying essentially is that, while "your work" is good enough for us to steal, you are not credible enough to cite.


Unf**kingbelievable