If You've Got News, Howard Kurtz Will Break It For You
In the past two days, Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz has been getting a lot of attention for his “scoop” about Dan Rather.
But the anecdote, published today in his book Reality Show, is old news.
In Mr. Kurtz’s book, he writes that former CBS anchor threatened to release a document to The New York Times if his now-widely-discredited National Guard story did not run on 60 Minutes. The threat was made to CBS News producer Josh Howard, according to Mr. Kurtz.
In fact, that same anecdote appeared two years earlier, in New York Press editor David Blum’s book about the long-running CBS show, tick… tick… tick…, according to Gawker, where you will find a painstaking side-by-side comparison.
We reached Mr. Kurtz a little before the Gawker item ran, after receiving a fax of the relevant pages in tick... tick... tick... from an agitated Mr. Blum. ("It doesn't seem like a scoop to me," Mr. Blum told Media Mob.)
“I was completely unaware of that,” Mr. Kurtz said by phone on Oct. 9, referring to the previous lives of his Dan Rather story.
So, apparently, was America's assignment editor, Matthew Drudge, who ate up the Kurtz "scoop" that was positioned at the top of a list of “fascinating revelations” sent out by Mr. Kurtz's publisher in a press release Sunday.
Mr. Kurtz was pretty pleased, and on his new and very frequently updated blog about the book, which you can visit here, wrote on Sunday night: "Reality Show is already picking up steam. Drudge is trumpeting a big item [the Rather item] here."
Mr. Kurtz told Media Mob he only "glanced at" the book, which he didn't have time to read when it came out two years ago. He said he owned a hardcover copy, but not the paperback edition of the book, where the Rather "revelation" appeared in an afterword. The paperback was published in 2005.
And both reporters got the scoop from the same source: news executive Josh Howard is named as the source to both. Double-dipping!
Mr. Kurtz described himself to The Media Mob as “a fanatic about attributing information.”
“Attribution," he said, "means 'this is where you got it.'”
Mr. Kurtz said that since he got the information directly from Mr. Howard, it didn't matter that the story had already been used elsewhere. Mr. Kurtz said he won't add an attribution to Mr. Blum's book in future editions.
The question is whether he will continue to tout the anecdote as a "scoop" in his upcoming appearances supporting the book.
From Mr. Kurtz's blog:
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
For those who want to follow the grand tour, I'll be on ABC's Good Morning America at 8:30. Doing CNN's Situation Room sometime between 4 and 6, and then the O'Reilly Factor in the 8 p.m. hour.
Howie Kurtz Tells Big Head DC he will talk with David Blum.
http://bigheaddc.com/2007/10/10/howie-kurtz-is-an-open-book/
Let me get this straight ... according to Howard Kurtz's journalistic ethics, if he gets the same story/fact from an interview subject that already has been publised long ago elsewhere -- and a specific story/fact was long ago reported - if he speaks directly to the same person -- after the story was previously published -- and that person recites for him that same fact again for him, he does not need to attribute the story/fact to the previously published reporter or material.
His rational is that he claims he did not get from the previously published material himself.
Well I would ask Mr. Kurtz, how would anyone verify that, since the material was published long before you? We just have to "trust" you?
Even if we did trust you -- what would preclude any reporter from reading previously reported material and just claiming they didn't get that material from seeing the material? and then to cover there tracks -- contact the same source and ask for them to recite the same information to them. Sounds like simple and effective way to lay claim to someone else's prevously reported material unethically.
The only way to prove such a thing would be a clear cut case of verbatium plagerism .. which if you're to steal someone elses work you would have to be extremely bold to do and not expect to get caught.
This is clearly a case of not properly attributing to material previously published, it doesn't matter whether you claim you didn't get it from there -- it was previously reported so why would do so? all you would have to do is contact the source of material after the fact and get the same information and then according to your logic say you don't have to "attribute" because you didn't get it from the report that first published the information.
A flat out case of not attributing properly and very close to plagerism is you ask me.