Scoops are strange things - you want to get a story that nobody else in the world has, but you also need it to be picked up by other newsrooms, if it's ever going to have legs. Some extraordinary stories get broken every year that weirdly don't get any traction, because they're only really pumped by one organisation and nobody else really notices.
Most journos are usually quite happy for others to pick up the ball and run with it, as long as the original source gets its full attribution. You can't just say 'other media report', you have to name that place, and you should also try and throw a weblink back to the story that set everything off. It's only polite.
And for god's sake, don't put a bloody byline on there, unless you're actually contributing something substantially new to the saga.
This isn't very hard, and with newsrooms constantly trying to match everyone else's story, it's vital that you can trace it all back to the original producer, if only for issues of clarity, reducing the garbled whispers that come from endless reproduction. These rules are there for a reason and while they might be unwritten, everybody is going to remember you if you break them.
But it still isn't happening nearly as often as it does. A couple of weeks ago, one of the terrific journos at the country's biggest newspaper took a public swipe at the main opposition for failing to adhere to any of the basic rules of a matching story, and with good cause. And yet, at the same time, a different reporter at that opposition was accusing the newspaper of doing exactly the same thing.
It wasn't a case of 'whataboutism', it was just a coincidence that they both happened at the same time, but that repetition showed that it was an issue that was far from being resolved. (It was also the rare argument on social media where everyone involved had a decent point, even if - as usual - there was more hot air than action.)
Look, it's bloody easy to snipe at each other for doing something a colleague in your own newsroom is guilty of, but maybe we should be looking inside at our own actions, and focus on that, instead of spitting at the opposition. You're not going to properly influence people at other organisations - you might inspire them to do a better job of attribution, but you're just as likely to piss them off - but you can tell your colleagues two desks away from you that they should treat other people's stories the way you'd like yours to be treated.
Corporate culture absolutely frowns on ever giving your competitor any recognition, but at the very least, admitting that somebody else got the story before you did will give a moral high ground, and that kind of personal smugness always triumphs over corporate loyalty.
Besides, it's not like these corporations are ever loyal to you, as countless journos have discovered in the past decade or so, when years of long service was unceremoniously ignored and reporters dispatched from the business. Frankly, journos should be trying to keep on the good side of their counterparts at rival organisations, because you'll probably be working with them one day, and they'll always remember how you treated them.
It never takes much to properly attribute. While it's never as simple as this 600-word rant insinuates - some reporters will be chasing the exact same thing and will both have the same data, so it's not necessary to acknowledge the other work - but throwing in a link to a truly great scoop doesn't hurt anybody.
Giving people credit where credit is properly due is always a good thing for everybody. You can throw shade at the opposition for doing that as much as you want, but you'll get more accomplished by taking care of your own house.
- Katherine Grant
Posts
