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.
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.