Last week one of the local papers printed an article regarding the existence, or lack thereof, of good kosher pizza. The writer mentioned that as part of her research she posted the question on Chowhound and proceeded to quote several of the posters, identifying them by their screen names. Nowhere in her initial post does she identify herself as a journalist nor does she reveal her intentions (by comparison here is recent request that appeared on MF). Additionally, this is the only time she has posted on the board.

This article has really angered me as I feel she engaged in unethical behavior. My experience is that if a journalist is doing research on a board they identify themselves and ask if they can contact some of the posters for possible inclusion in the article. I feel it's inappropriate to quote someone without their permission, even if it is a pseudonym. Am I overreacting? Do you think this is violation of board etiquette or journalistic ethics?

You have a strong point, but anyone posting on an Internet board should appreciate that they aren't doing so in private.

The reporter should be spanked, though.

There is something slightly bizarre about having the words "etiquette" and "journalist" in the same phrase.

Our Guidelines reference an interest in respecting individual privacy rights in G-8, but a prohibition against mining a contributor's content isn't stated.

eG had a similar discussion a few years ago over the issue of who owns the future use of reviews and other user supplied content. Some people argued the use of a clearly defined "reporting name" had economic value to the user, while others felt the publication on eG constituted a transfer of copyright.


Guidelines

I guess the reason why the kosher board feels that way is that they're used to talking to insiders and express their views openly. Should they have known this was for an article, they would have been a lot more apologetic about the quality of kosher pizza, as is customary in some traditions.

But journalists have been known to do a lot worse by their sources than that.

NO matter what the subject, I feel duped into doing someone else's research when a journalist doesn't reveal, in their inquiry, what they're using the info for. I have no problem about being quoted without permission (it is in a public forum, after all,) but I hate someone else getting paid for exploiting my knowledge (using the term loosely, of course...)

For a while, MF admins had a stock warning included in the new member e-mail, asking the new member to disclose if they were a restrateur, journalist, etc and put that in their sig line if they were offering / seeking comments related to their work.

I don't know if that's still the case.

Certainly a good idea..It's nice to be informed, then you can decide whether or not you want to be someone's unpaid research assistant...

I remember this happeing at EG and it was odd to see folks falling all over themselves in order to participate. And it often seemed like the "writer" had a POV he wanted to support rather than find out any kind of consenus.

I seem to get asked to participate in polls a lot. Maybe they're really ads in disguise but I never do them anyway. I ask how much I'll be getting paid and they always look flustered. "But you're getting paid, right? I'm the one who will be providing you with information and content. It seems like I'm the one who should be compensated."

I guess that this is as good a time as any to mention that I only joined MF as research for my doctorial dissertation on "Interpersonal Relationships on Food Boards: How the Internet Helps Everyone Get Along". However, as a result of my membership here, I've since dropped out of the program and will be publishing it as a work of fiction (the board governance chapter is being considered for a sitcom as well). Does this mean that I can't use postings verbatim as dialogue?

Years ago, when I posted on the Straphangers subway board, I saw a post by Randy Kennedy (who used to write the subway column in the Times) asking for opinions on a bit of subway etiquette. My response made it into his article, which made it into print.

interesting topic, in that navel-gazing way we journalists are so fond of (at least in the US)!

It can be a little touchy being a member of an on-line community and also being a journalist that covers the topic of interest of that online community. I've been involved in food boards since the late '80s when i edited Prodigy's food contributors and i have to say that i can remember less than a half-dozen times that i've quoted someone from a food board. much more common for me is to see a question or a comment that spurs a story idea that may or may not be directly related to the original question or comment.

but for the record, as a matter of personal practice, if i were to ask a question for an article, I would disclose that I was asking it for an article. on the other hand, if i'm working on a story that has been covered by a past topic, i would have no problem quoting someone's public post, though i think i would probably try to contact the poster to let them know and check and see whether the quote was accurate and still reflected their thinking. but maybe not.

to me, i don't see any difference in quoting from a public board and quoting from a published article or book.

I think a proper application of journalistic ethics is that the poster identify himself as a journalist, effectively giving notice that the content of posts may be used and/or quoted without specifically asking permission to use individual items.

If the journalist initiates a thread for a story, IMHO it would be appropriate to clearly state such. I think the right thing to do would also be to contact each person to be quoted, not so much as to ask permission but to be sure the quote is correct and the context is understood.

---
jbh

The admin experience really had an impact on you, huh?

I think you've hit it on the head - it feels as if the writer is being lazy.

But but, what about undercover journalism??? I mean, if you know that the person asking you questions is a journalist, maybe you're more reluctant to be forthright.

This is hardly Woodward and Bernstein.

It's not?

i don't think so at all. a big part of what journalists do is go out and find out what knowledgeable people are thinking and bring it to the public at large. we're not "experts" ourselves, but translators that bring the knowledge of "experts" to a broader audience. do this long enough and as if by magic people begin to think of you as an expert yourself. on the other hand, who among us hasn't learned something from reading someone else? how is this different?

But if you were working on a story that required speaking with people, wouldn't you identify yourself and explain that you're either looking for background or for someone to speak on the record. Why should the rules change just because you go online to a message board?

Well, because the interviewee is more likely to be guarded, and perhaps even untruthful, with his/her comments.

Those who complain that they're not being paid to do a journalist's work for him imply that they are incurring some cost in acquiring their information. Not so, of course.

I just don't see the problem. The idea that journalistic etiquette exists at all borders on the laughable. In the context we are discussing, they are there to acquire information and disseminate it. They have not the slightest responsibility or duty to inform their interviewees what they are, or what they are doing.

And you can quote me on that

again, i draw a distinction between starting a thread for the purpose of researching a story and working on a story and, say, searching this or another site to see what people have already written. The first would be, for me, more akin to setting up an interview; the other more like pulling clips and other background material.

Granted, this is my personal reading of the situation. Though most journalists of my acquaintance have extremely strong and well (or at least extensively) argued ethical codes, they are far from uniform.

i think some people may feel used when they are asked something that's their "expertise" or opinion without knowing there is an agenda and their opinion is used by a member of the media. i have a feeling that they would have answered the question just as willingly (and likely more so) had they known the purpose.

my posts have been quoted with and without my knowledge by the media and i prefer knowing - i think it's courteous to do so, esp. since one's using a board as a tool. so, go ahead and use me but be honest about

As m.san points out, they would give a different answer to the media than they would to a random participant, and a less truthful one.

I don't think it's in the journalist's best interest to so inform. So why should he/she?

There's also the issue of proper attribution. Inserting a well constructed analysis from "Rat Eater" into an article on gourmet butters won't necessarily enhance the scholarly value of the writer's work.

If you're quoting somebody with a real, traceable name, common courtesy would suggest the newspaper scribe verify that it's OK to use the name. I could adopt the name "Craig Claiborne" and few internet sites would stop me, yet it wouldn't be appropriate for a writer to cite Craig Claiborne as an authority on current gourmet butters.

Because they are taking something that was given freely and making money from it without letting you know that was their purpose?

Those type of thinly veiled inquiries appear on Chowhound all the time. "What are the 10 best diners in NYC?" Overly broad questions with a hook to hang a story on. If the writer discloses the nature of the question up front I'm fine with it. I might even answer if I'm in the mood. But I resent being played for a sucker.

I recognize that other people might have different opinions and I don't see this as a "right or wrong" issue.

Clearly, many of these "journalists" don't have the code of ethics some would (naively) want them to have.

Now tell me something I don't know.

So they should put your ethical standard above their professional needs?

How is this different from any journalist reporting on anything, using a variety of printed sources?

Plus one should assume that anything one posts on a public website is fair game. If you don't want your words used for a particular purpose - don't post 'em.

They do what they want, I do what I want.


How do you explain the fact that plenty of journalists identify themselves up front when making a research type of request. They seem to understand that there's a distinction. Paul Lukas does it all the time.

I draw a distinction between a journalist searching through an archive of existing posts and one who posts a fresh question under false pretenses. I understand I have no recourse in those circumstances but if I sense that an inquiry is secretly being used for a story I won't play along. Them's my rules.

I happen to agree with you. I'm just recognizing that a lot of people don't, and will behave accordingly.

I think there are slightly different perceptions of journalists in the USA and in the UK: here (in the UK) journalists are in general considered a very low form of bottom feeding scum and the idea that they should have any ethics is generally considered absurd; in the US I have noticed a degree of respect and cultural authority is accorded to journalists -- perhaps because of Watergate?

So in the UK it is quite common for journalists to fabricate quotes completely, doctor photographs, steal stories from other newspapers, lie about what they said the previous day, bug telephones, etc. etc. And as a result they often get spanked.

Here in the U.S. we think of the people on the Fox network like that.

Tell me this means something different in the UK.

i've heard that about the brits (and enjoyed it in waugh). it is much different here--not uniformly, of course ... there are no uniform rules that could cover the wall street journal and the weekly world news (well, maybe the wsj editorial page). but in general, in the US, newspaper journalists like to think of themselves as professionals. the ethical standards are quite high. at the la times, we had a photographer fired for posing a photo--he'd seen a fireman dip his helmet into a swimming pool to cool off during a brushfire and asked him to repeat the motion. now granted, things do happen, but i cling to the belief that they are the exception rather than the norm.

Yes, I agree- it's lazy. I don't blame the reporter... after all why do the research when you can get others to do it for you? Heck, if I could get someone else to do my job for me but still get the paycheck for it I'd probably do it too. If the reporter discloses up front, fine, it's my choice. But these forums are built on a community "one for all all for one feeling" and these types of inquiries are exploiting that goodwill to put money in a reporter's pocket without being clear that's what's going on.

What really steams my muffin is when they don't even have the courtesy to come back to the forum and post a link to the article, contributing back to the community. I mean, you exploited the commuity for your own gain, at least throw it a freaking bone.

Reading through all the stuff that people post is research, imo, and it takes a lot of time and effort to sift through all the crap that people post until you find something usable. And if, as Russ P. says he does, the writer then tries to contact the posters whose statements s/he wants to use, I see no harm. I have occasionally posed a question for the purpose of gathering information -- such as the time I asked about what people think makes a well-written recipe* -- and think I got honest answers, as I would expect any journalist would get who posed a reasonable question in a reasonable way and yes, identified him/herself and his/her purpose up front.

Another site where I'm a moderator has had to deal with something similar but in my mind much, much lazier and unethical: students who are writing papers and want members to tell them where to look for information and/or pretty much spoon-feed it to them. Especially annoying when the same questions have been answered before, and before, and before -- and the material is right there for anyone who bothers to do even a minimal search.

And boy oh boy, do I agree with Mantis about the courtesy of returning to the site to let the community know when the story will appear, at the very least. I can think of at least one instance on eG when a reporter from WSJ asked for, and got, information, and disappeared off the face of the earth. If it weren't for Rail Paul, we probably would never have known that the story even came out.

* For those who responded, um, I never quoted anyone after all, just used the general feelings expressed to inform what I said. If anyone wants a copy of the presentation, PM me.

P.S. Mantis: "What steams my muffin" -- may I quote you on that?

Hee hee, feel free. Don't even know where that came from- it just came out!

For a good example of journalistic standards in England, you could do worse than look at this article Science told: hands off gay sheep from the Sunday Times, which is by no means the worst newspaper in this regard. This article is complete bollocks from start to finish.

It is certainly...extraordinary.

Oops! Never admit that a bon mot was an accident. We own so little these days.

I don't understand that. Are you saying the topic is bollocks, or the journalistic treatment, or both ? And whichever, why ?

"Navratilova defended the “right” of sheep to be gay."

Lordie, I love that sentence. Pure Python. I may have to use it as my sig, just because.

Serious research completely misrepresented : there is a discussion here.

Interesting link. Makes the writers look very bad.

Yes, it does suggest an agenda though I'm usually more inclined to follow the cockup rather than conspiracy theory of journalistic innaccuracy.

Wow Just goes to show that my general opinion of journalists is well founded.

i hope i'm not coming off as defensive, or culturally insensitive. but wtf is up with the british press? i know there are exceptions, but stuff like this just doesn't happen in the united states (or if it does, on a much higher plane with much better cover--eg judith miller). to an outsider, it looks like the run-of-the-mill british journo is about on the level of the weekly world news or whatever it's called--the one with the alien on the cover (doesn't matter which week, there's always an alien on the cover).

in the us, we may go to the opposite extreme, seeing ourselves as some kind of secular priesthood, a cross between a bishop and an academic (no, let's not go there). but in most newspapers in the united states, making up a quote--even if it is something the person would likely have said--is a fire-able offense. that's not just at the big 4, but at most hometown papers, too, if to a slightly lesser extent.

we usually think of you brits as so cultured --masterpiece theater and all-- so what's with the newspapers?

Unlike the Prof, I don't accept the cock-up theory where journalists are concerned. I think the crap that passes for journalism in Britain is designed to achieve quite specific and deliberate ends.

We have some media where all that matters is advertising revenue, and therefore i(in the case of newspapers) copy sales. Very many journalists in these media deliberately concoct stories by entrapment, and knowingly tell lies, in order to create a story which boosts sales.

Many other journalists deliberately lie in order to enhance their reputations.

Of course behind that there are many who are simply incompetent, but I honestly think they're a minority.

Britain once had a press to be proud of, but rather like our television and our education system, that disappeared many years ago

As a British ex-pat, I can't argue with a word of what Russ said*. Journalists here - on the big papers, anyway - take themselves infinitely more seriously. Usually a good thing, although it can seem absurdly pious to an outsider.

As for the reason: in my youth, there was a stark divide in the market between newspapers which were to be taken seriously as papers of record, and tabloids which - while some had their serious moments - were a lot less respectable. I perceive a similar gap still in existence in New York. In the UK, the gap gradually closed, with some of the more serious papers (the Mail, the Express) going tabloid literally and figuratively, and finally with the Times ending up in the Murdoch group.

I don't know how seriously the Guardian and the Telegraph remain - but (other than the Financial Times) - that's about all that's left.

I have avoided making political points about the various media owners, not just because of the Guidelines, but because that's not really the bottom line: the Guardian and Telegraph are from different ends of the political spectrum, and were still functioning as more-or-less reliable papers when I left the U.K.

*Haven't read Macro yet. I have now - I see we have similar views, although I would emphasize that there are still plenty of individual journalists of integrity working in the U.K.