Jessica Elgot is a reporter working on the
Jewish Chronicle. And she's really not happy...
Jessica wrote a cracking story back in August about a
British heir to £100m of Nazi-looted art, which made the front-page. And then she thought nothing more of it... until an eerily-similar version of the story
popped up in the Newcastle Journal two months later, based on the fact that the heir is from Northumberland.
The intro, at least, is different, but her quotes were used in full - and no attribution.
It happens all the time in journalism, unfortunately, far more than it should, but Jessica didn't want to let it lie. So, as she explains in
a blog post on the Jewish Chronicle website, she investigated.
Trying not to spit blood, I casually enquired how this might have happened. The Journal it seemed had received a copy-and-pasted press release from Straughans, a firm of accountants assisting on the case, who had given us the original tip off. Then the Journal reporter googled the story and decided to help himself to a few more quotes from the story on our website. The Journal is promising to put in the proper attribution, but that's yet to materialise.
It still hasn't materialised - and it gets worse. The two-month old reheated story attracted the interest of the nationals, and the
Sunday Telegraph followed up:
Today I happened to pick up the Sunday Telegraph. And guess what? They've printed the Journal's story, albeit they've done a better job of rewriting the press release than the Journal, but still, my quotes are there. And they don't attribute the Journal - whom I guess they believed did the original story. The story doesn't appear to be on their website, though it was printed in Sunday's paper on page 31.
Crying plagiarism is always a fine line of course - just because a paper breaks a story, that doesn't give it exclusive rights over that story for all time. And if a firm of accountants issues a press release with quotes from the executor in it... well, one can see them also confirming that the other quotes used by the
Jewish Chronicle were accurate, and the time-pressed regional journalist simply added them in.
So to long-in-the-tooth Fleet Street veterans Jessica's angry rant is unlikely to cause much of a stir. But it should. The story in question, which appeared in a specialist newspaper, local newspaper and a national, was only
reported once. The
Newcastle Journal and
Sunday Telegraph just
rewrote it - and apparently passed it off as their own.
There's a kind of unspoken, accepted rule in journalism that nicking stories in one direction, and in particular for print, is OK. So magazine stories can be reused by local papers, regional journalists can see their work appear in the nationals and
blogs are fair game for anyone, all without any suggestion that the new story isn't original work.
But that kind of arrogant assumption is an anachronism that just doesn't fly anymore, not in the world of the web.
It's not 'just intellectual copyright'. The only thing which enables journalists to do what they do and feed their families at night is intellectual copyright. And if local papers and nationals and anyone else thinks it's OK to lift quotes or churn out two-month old stories? Well, newspapers, even the nationals, are no longer the biggest beasts in the jungle, even if they think they still are.
And when a new Google comes along, a Google without the don't-be-evil motto and with a bunch of play-to-win hard-assed lawyers, and when they set up the ultimate churnalism service which copies and repurposes every original news story out there, search engine optimises it to the max and quickly becomes the world's go-to place for any kind of digital news ... well, the
Newcastle Journals and the
Sunday Telegraphs of this world are totally screwed.
Or actually, journalists in general are totally screwed.
But the Newcastle Journals and the Sunday Telegraphs of this world will kind of deserve it.