Monday, January 10, 2005

The Star-Trib's Disclosure Ethics

The Warrior Monk at Spitbull divulges an interesting exchange he recently had with the Star Tribune's "News Reader's Representative" regarding a recent Nick Coleman column in which he apparently lifted a good deal of material from a previous column he had published when he worked for a different newspaper.

Please follow the links and draw your own conclusion.

My own is that, judging by this story and prior accounts, the Star Tribune doesn't provide a terribly serious editorial function in regards to its opinion columnists. They're allowed to state falsehoods without correction, and now we find out their columns may be past their expiration date by the time the paper lands on your front porch.

I don't want to assume that the editorial standards of all traditional newspapers are as low as this. But I'd certainly be careful to look into them before you presume their statements are more trustworthy than those you find in other places. Like, say, the blogosphere.


Blogger Army of Mom said...

Ok, my first instinct was to say that is disgusting, but then I started thinking about it. I have written the same article for multiple publications while changing very little in each of them for the other. There is nothing unethical about it, but I can see why it would be disturbing.

3:29 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home