The SF Weekly accuses the Daily Mail website of churnalism and poor attribution after the tabloid's site rehashed one of its stories: "There is absolutely no original reporting in the entire Daily Mail piece. Apparently the reporter thought he or she was absolved via a quick "SFWeekly.com reports" in the 18th paragraph. No link or anything. ... Roy Peter Clark, a senior scholar at the Poynter Institute, a journalism ethics think tank: "Linking is one of the simplest and oldest strategies. ... I think the reason you might not link is you don't want to call attention to how close your version is to the one you're linking to. It may be a sign that someone knows that they're pirating the work."
"Looking to the public for insight on how to cover a topic is never comfortable for newsrooms, which have the deeply held belief that readers come to a newspaper not only for its information but also for its editorial judgment. But many newsrooms now seem to be re-examining that idea and embracing, albeit cautiously, a more democratic approach to serving up the news, particularly online."
The New York Times Magazine's big piece on the News of the World phone hacking scandal ...
"On Friday, I broke a tasty story about a woman suing Google, claiming bad directions caused her to get hit by a vehicle. Today, I discover our story is everywhere [including the Mail and the Sun], often with no attribution."
Totally agree with my former editor Dom here: "Two-week work placements are a two-way street, with the trainees contributing their time and effort in exchange for a certain amount of mentoring and the chance to see their name in print (that’s the way it works at Press Gazette). But if they are good enough to warrant having around any longer than that – they should be paid. And all reputable news organisations should have guidelines in place to make sure this happens."
"This case raised the important principle of the extent to which newspapers and magazines are able to make use of information that is already freely available online. ..."
Marc Fisher: "just because it is technically possible to unpublish a digital story in a way that was never possible in the ink-on-paper world does not make it right to do so."
"After Mr. Fiore received the Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning — and after he mentioned his app’s rejection in an article published on niemanlab.org on Thursday — he was encouraged by Apple to resubmit it. Mr. Fiore did so on Friday morning and is awaiting a response."
" Could a news organization run into problems with Apple if they were publishing unpopular stories about a political topic? Imagine if The New York Times wanted to publish the Pentagon Papers on its iPhone and iPad apps. Would Apple stand in the way of controversial reporting if the political winds were blowing against it?"
"The iPad is the most exciting opportunity for the media in many years. But if the press is ceding gatekeeper status, even if it’s only nominally, over its speech, then it is making a dangerous mistake. Unless Apple explicitly gives the press complete control over its ability to publish what it sees fit, the news media needs to yank its apps in protest."
"This escapade raises an interesting question, one that media critic and tech writer Dan Gillmor has been asking for a while: Now that many news organizations use iPhone applications to publish their work, can Apple evict those programs if it doesn't like their content? What about, say, The Post's own iPhone app, which presents the often-scornful work of such colleagues as Dana Milbank and Tom Toles?"
"In December, Apple rejected [cartoonist Mark Fiore] iPhone app, NewsToons, because, as Apple put it, his satire “ridicules public figures,” a violation of the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement, which bars any apps whose content in 'Apple’s reasonable judgement may be found objectionable, for example, materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory.'"