The alpha and the omega

Plagiarism has come up as a subject of discussion again recently, leading some critics to ponder the reasons why journalists lie, cheat and steal, purposefully or "accidentally."

Matthew Ingram tackles plagiarism from another point of view, saying that if journalists thought more like bloggers and truly valued hyperlinking, then they wouldn't get themselves into such messes.

I especially like what Ingram has to say about how print journalists tend to see themselves:

Traditional print media workers are used to thinking of themselves as the be-all and end-all of information, the only source that anyone could possibly need (despite the fact that many stories are based either wholly or in part on reporting by wire services such as the Associated Press and Reuters), and are loathe to give anyone else credit. That has to change.

There are all sorts of reasons why journalists do and don't link. Web tradition says they should. Business sense suggests they shouldn't. Whatever. Allowing yourself to "accidentally" include someone else's words in your work without crediting them is the result of lazy journalists with poor notation skills. Period.

Related posts:

1. Journalism’s salvation is hiding in a mountain of data
2. Google as the news industry’s middle man
3. Link: “Empty Justice: Crime on Montana’s Reservations”
4. Comment moderation: How far is too far?