RAWSTORY---Asks AP For Correction After 'Lifting' Story---AP REFUSES

[kpete]

Associated Press says they based article on Raw Story report but refuses to credit or correct

John Byrne
Published: Tuesday March 28, 2006

The Associated Press has confirmed using a Raw Story report as the basis for a Mar. 14 article detailing a change to national security clearance policies but has refused to issue credit for the piece.

Their article, "Security Clearance Rules May Impede Gays," signaled an apparent Bush Administration attempt to tighten security clearances with regard to gay Americans. It attributed the discovery of the clearance changes to gay rights groups – a factually inaccurate statement which the agency has refused to correct. The discovery was made by Larisa Alexandrovna, Raw Story's Managing News Editor, and John Byrne, Raw Story's Executive Editor.

Two gay rights groups, Human Rights Campaign and Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, confirmed they had used Raw Story's article and notes distributed by Raw Story as the basis of their conversations with the AP reporter. The AP later admitted they had learned of the change from the Raw Story article. Raw Story’s article, along with notes intended to help groups speak to its contents, was sent to gay groups by Michael Rogers, a gay activist who runs PageOneQ.com.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Associated_Press_says_they_based_article_0328.html

[stop the bleeding]

1. Fucking asshole AP

“We do credit blogs that we know,” Stokes said. “We had no idea who you were.”

Well I guess you know who RawStory is Now, fucking spineless bastards. aaarrrrggghhhhhhhh!!!!

I am so fucking mad right now I could chew bricks


only all sorts of sources have used RS and now you want to pull this crap, man am I pissed.:banghead::banghead:

I don't know how Larisa and John can go about their business without blowing a fuse??

[rocktivity]

6. If they don't want to credit blogs they don't know

THEN WHY USE THEIR INFORMATION??? :crazy:

But seriously folks, what's going on between the bloggers and the mainstream media is nothing less than war, so we shouldn't be TOO suprised.

:headbang:
rocknation

[stop the bleeding]

9. War is correct - hence why we are here in the trenches

everyday.

We will win this war.

[katty]

12. AP - always arrogant - always ready cover for bush

[hootinholler]

62. Um, I think they've done this before?

Pretty sure that would mean the know RS, eh?

-Hoot

[Cocoa]

2. correct me if I'm wrong...

but didn't Raw Story at one time regularly outright steal stories from AP and others? Basically posting the text of stories, adding "Raw Story has learned" in place of crediting the authors.

[acmejack]

4. I would say you're wrong.

Would you be so gracious as to provide a link to a single example of this?

[kpete]

5. I am with acmejack

[Cocoa]

8. I'll tell you what I recall

very often I would read something in Raw Story, then go googling for confirmation. I would find confirmation in the form of identical wire stories posted shortly before the Raw Story post. The Raw Story story would have no crediting of the original story, it would just say "Raw Story has learned."

It stopped abruptly, maybe a year or two ago. Raw Story began doing what normal blogs do, simply linking to the story they got the piece from. I assumed they got complaints or legal threats, but I don't know.

I can't find any examples, this is from memory. Maybe someone else remembers the same thing.

[stop the bleeding]

10. Goto their archives if you want to be sure, they should still be around

from the time frame that you are talking about, personally for me I am not going to waste my time on it, but I would be interested to see an example of what you profess.

[Cocoa]

13. an example

Tue Jun-15-04 01:35 PM
EXCLUSIVE REPORT
Bush's lawyer harbors secretive, criminal past
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=623987

http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/jim_sharp_bush_lawyer_secrecy.htm

The cult of secrecy surrounding President Bush’s newly retained lawyer in the Valerie Plame CIA leak case is so strong that the White House refuses even to confirm who the president’s lawyer is.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters June 3 that the lawyer’s name was Jim Sharp, but refused even to confirm whether he is James E. Sharp, a Washington attorney.


Far lesser known, however, is a 1994 finding by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, where he engaged in “unethical and criminal activity” for pressuring a witness to commit perjury. The charge was leveled by one of Sharp’s witnesses when he represented his self-avowed “good friend” Joe Harry Pegg against a charge of conspiring to import marijuana in 1988 and 1989.

In 1994, when the case was being heard on appeal, the lawyer for one of Pegg’s co-conspirators, Reggie Baxter, contacted the prosecuting attorney, Cynthia Collazo, saying that Sharp might have had “privileged conversations” that might cause Sharp to have a conflict of interest in representing Pegg.

“In unsworn statements, Baxter told Collazo that shortly after he had been arrested in 1992 for participating in the marijuana importation conspiracy charged in the instant case, Sharp had met with him and arranged for Pegg to pay a portion of Baxter's legal fees,” the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals transcript states. “Baxter then stated that Pegg had retained attorney Dick Hibey to represent Baxter in the case. Baxter further claimed that Sharp and Hibey helped him concoct a false story to help exculpate Pegg.”

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=11th&navby=case&no=9911287MAN







Thursday, June 03, 2004

http://www.davidsirota.com/2004/06/who-is-presidents-new-lawyer.html

WHO IS JAMES E. SHARP?: Attempts by the media "to reach Sharp, an Oklahoma native and former assistant U.S. attorney who has built a low-profile white-collar defense practice in Washington, were unsuccessful." The White House is being so secretive it actually refuses to confirm whether this is the same "James E. Sharp" consulting with the President.

JAMES E. SHARP ACCUSED OF SUBORNING PERJURY: The Progress Report did its own unofficial search in an effort to uncover more details about the lawyer for the president. A search of the DC Bar website lists a James E. Sharp as an active member. A search of court documents shows an attorney named James E. Sharp represented his "good friend" Joe Harry Pegg who was indicted as "one of several individuals who conspired to import marijuana into the United States in 1988 and 1989." During James E. Sharp's representation of Pegg, one of Pegg's alleged co-conspirators said Sharp "helped him concoct a false story to help exculpate Pegg." After sentencing, Pegg appealed his conviction on the ground that "his attorney had a conflict of interest that deprived him of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel." The 11th Circuit decision in the case reports that the government did "not deny that Sharp labored under an actual conflict of interest."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=11th&navby=case&no=9911287MAN

[stop the bleeding]

16. Good research

but didn't Raw Story at one time regularly outright steal stories from AP and others? Basically posting the text of stories, adding "Raw Story has learned" in place of crediting the authors.


Also I am curious still to see an example of this happening when RS lifts something from the AP.

I'll check back later to see what you can dig up.

[Cocoa]

17. notice how Sirota links to the LA Times story?

notice how Raw Story credits neither the LA times nor the Center for American Progress?

[Maddy McCall]

19. Cocoa, to you and me (and many other DUers) it's unethical...

and even considered plagiarism, by those of us who work in arenas that respect others' intellectual property.

To people who are just glad that the left has its own version of Drudge (not something to which I think we should aspire, but anyway...) there is no convincing them that Raw Story operates in a very unethical way.

[Cocoa]

21. I've contributed money to CAP

they did the research, which costs money, and Raw Story took it and used it for their own ad revenue. :mad:

And they used to use DU for free advertising. :mad:

[lala_rawraw]

28. Excuse me... again, this is what you cite for evidence?

I say again, when we have cited something or mistakenly omitted something, we fixed it right away. Ask anyone who reads us. To suggest that we would take someone's work on purpose and use that link as an example is really not ethical and for someone claiming interest in ethics, all i see is interest in smearing.

[Maddy McCall]

31. Example? There's on on DU right now. ACLU case.

You present the news release as if Raw Story is somehow privy to the exact info that is presented on the ACLU website. Your "article" consists of nothing more than a verbatim recitation of the ACLU press release, yet you refuse to even LINK to the ACLU website, where ANY reader can find the press release as it was originally released.

According to the intellectual ethics to which I adhere, you should at the very least link to the ACLU website and make it clear that the info is available there, not just some specially issued press release to Raw Story.

Your story: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/ACLU_Pentagon_concedes_Abu_Ghraib_photo_0328.html

The ACLU release: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/24785prs20060328.html

I'm not "smearing" you, personally; I just think that the way you do business is often unethical and without respect for other people's work.

[lala_rawraw]

39. You are that insane? It is a PR and we say it is a PR and we link

to the PR and PRs are sent out on a wire to everyone on the list for publication... really, are you really this obsessed or are you simply just this confused?

[Cocoa]

36. show me where Raw Story credits CAP

[stop the bleeding]

22. No I messed up when I was accessing the links and did not see that

I skipped over that one, now I see that he has linked this to the LA Times, I am assuming that this story was there even though the link(s) have since gone bad.

Good research.

[lala_rawraw]

29. no the links at Raw in the same article... they are not in blue

On my screen for some reason, but they are underlined in the story.

[Cocoa]

37. but CAP found the links

the links are the result of CAP research.

[lala_rawraw]

24. Okay i don't get it, one is david sirota, who does not write for Raw

and one is quoting from a legal document or what appears to be... have to go back and read... so i don't get examples... can you please note more so i can see what your talking about? thanks, will correct if this has occured.

[lala_rawraw]

27. Ah, you did see the links when you read that right? Or did you

simply omit them when you pasted... i don't understand the example.

[Cocoa]

40. you're playing games

I included the links in my excerpts from both articles, from yours and from Sirota's.

Sirota says where he got the links. From CAP.

Raw Story does not.

[RazzleDazzle]

43. The LINKS? You think where someone found the LINKS needs to be

credited?

Whew! That's amazing. No, Cocoa, that's not essential, and it has nothing to do with plagiarism. Nothing whatsoever.

[Cocoa]

44. yes, of course it has to be credited

I hope when you post links on DU, which someone else found, you are following the convention of crediting where you got them.

You are, aren't you?

edit with an example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=770340&mesg_id=770340

via two blogs, my headline comes from the first one...

http://www.norwegianity.com/index.php?itemid=246

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6964.html

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/polit...

[RazzleDazzle]

74. Yours is substantively different -- do you KNOW that and YOU'RE

the one playing games, or do you really not see it?

In your example, all you've got is what you've read elsewhere and QUOTED VERBATIM. If you didn't provide links you'd look like a raving maniac or something.

AND, links, links, links and a few excerpts thrown in is sorta the whole or at least a major purpose/focus of DU, to gather news from around the web (with links!) and accumulate it in one place, discuss it, etc. With very, very few exceptions we're not reporters and writers; most of us are not writing original content, and the few who are are writing rants and such, or occasionally compilations of a few links with analysis and commentary (e.g., Octafish, H2O Man).

If RawStory saw a story somewhere, gathered the facts and went off and did their own reporting on it, I personally see no absolute requirement for them to credit the original source. If they just regurgitate the original material in rewritten form, they should probably but they're certainly not LEGALLY required to do so unless they've lifted actual copy so it doesn't look like they're trying to present it as their own.

But all this is moot and irrelevent anyway since (a) by your own admission the thing you charge them with no longer happens and hasn't for a year or so and (b) you haven't made your case anyway.

[Maddy McCall]

45. How exactly is it NOT plagiarism?

Do you even know what plagiarism is? It extends far beyond just verbatim recitation. It also covers intellectual property. Do you not know that?

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maddy McCall]

61. Or how about this novel thought?

When you create your own website and if I should join, then you can tell me what to do. As for now, I attend to the rules set out by DU admin, not by you.

Have a nice day. :hi:

[radio4progressives]

66. Consider yourself completely discredited...

:hi:

[Cocoa]

65. why?

I don't see why I can't make observations about things I see posted here.

No one has to agree with me, and very few do. That's fine. I don't demand everyone, or even anyone, dislike Raw Story. I'm just saying what I think about them, and why. I don't see anything wrong with that. I'm being fair about it, and not engaging in personal attacks.

[RazzleDazzle]

42. Are these supposed to be an example of plagiarism?

Do you know what plagiarism is and entails? It does NOT entail reporting the same story in different words. If I took something you'd written and rephrased it entirely, it would NOT be plagiarism.

I see NO plagiarism here. Care to point out -- word for word from each link (excluding the findlaw legal docs which are basically irrelevent -- how wrong I am?

[Maddy McCall]

18. Yes, it's happened numerous times. One time in particular...

Raw Story posted a story about the DeLay prosecution as an "exclusive." A few minutes later, a DUer posted in that thread that their story was verbatim identical to one the New York Times had up, and the NYT's story had an author in the by-line, which meant that the NYT story was the original.

You can't find those old threads in the archives here, because many times they are zapped.

[Cocoa]

23. thanks

good to know I'm not imagining things. :-)

[lala_rawraw]

26. Again, i am interested in an example...

Our archive went zap because the server was moved or whatever they did with the server. But you can use Google to find cached files of course. And frankly, until you locate actual examples, please don't speculate about something this serious. If there are cases, and we made an error in citing something, we corrected it right away and would be happy to do so should any additional info comes up.

[lala_rawraw]

25. Feel free to use Google... are you sure

You are not talking about a case where we are leaked an article in advance and we cite that information, where we got it and use the fair use limit to paragraphs?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RazzleDazzle]

41. If it stopped, what's your beef?

If it stopped, you're just carrying a grudge. If it stopped, your complaint is basically irrelevent and just a distraction from the rest of the thread.

If it stopped, why are you bellyachin' about it? You want a PERSONAL apology or something?

Further, I've yet to see good documentation of your claim. Got any?

[Richard Steele]

7. Well, then, consider yerself CORRECTED. Your implications are WRONG.

[Cocoa]

14. here's what I'm talking about

but like I said, they seem to have stopped doing this.

Tue Jun-15-04 01:35 PM
EXCLUSIVE REPORT
Bush's lawyer harbors secretive, criminal past
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=623987

http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/jim_sharp_bush_lawyer_secrecy.htm

The cult of secrecy surrounding President Bush’s newly retained lawyer in the Valerie Plame CIA leak case is so strong that the White House refuses even to confirm who the president’s lawyer is.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters June 3 that the lawyer’s name was Jim Sharp, but refused even to confirm whether he is James E. Sharp, a Washington attorney.


Far lesser known, however, is a 1994 finding by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, where he engaged in “unethical and criminal activity” for pressuring a witness to commit perjury. The charge was leveled by one of Sharp’s witnesses when he represented his self-avowed “good friend” Joe Harry Pegg against a charge of conspiring to import marijuana in 1988 and 1989.

In 1994, when the case was being heard on appeal, the lawyer for one of Pegg’s co-conspirators, Reggie Baxter, contacted the prosecuting attorney, Cynthia Collazo, saying that Sharp might have had “privileged conversations” that might cause Sharp to have a conflict of interest in representing Pegg.

“In unsworn statements, Baxter told Collazo that shortly after he had been arrested in 1992 for participating in the marijuana importation conspiracy charged in the instant case, Sharp had met with him and arranged for Pegg to pay a portion of Baxter's legal fees,” the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals transcript states. “Baxter then stated that Pegg had retained attorney Dick Hibey to represent Baxter in the case. Baxter further claimed that Sharp and Hibey helped him concoct a false story to help exculpate Pegg.”

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=11th&navby=case&no=9911287MAN




Thursday, June 03, 2004

http://www.davidsirota.com/2004/06/who-is-presidents-new-lawyer.html

WHO IS JAMES E. SHARP?: Attempts by the media "to reach Sharp, an Oklahoma native and former assistant U.S. attorney who has built a low-profile white-collar defense practice in Washington, were unsuccessful." The White House is being so secretive it actually refuses to confirm whether this is the same "James E. Sharp" consulting with the President.

JAMES E. SHARP ACCUSED OF SUBORNING PERJURY: The Progress Report did its own unofficial search in an effort to uncover more details about the lawyer for the president. A search of the DC Bar website lists a James E. Sharp as an active member. A search of court documents shows an attorney named James E. Sharp represented his "good friend" Joe Harry Pegg who was indicted as "one of several individuals who conspired to import marijuana into the United States in 1988 and 1989." During James E. Sharp's representation of Pegg, one of Pegg's alleged co-conspirators said Sharp "helped him concoct a false story to help exculpate Pegg." After sentencing, Pegg appealed his conviction on the ground that "his attorney had a conflict of interest that deprived him of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel." The 11th Circuit decision in the case reports that the government did "not deny that Sharp labored under an actual conflict of interest."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=11th&navby=case&no=9911287MAN

[Maddy McCall]

20. Anytime that they say that "Raw Story has learned..."

They should be ethical enough to give credit to the news items from which they glean their "exclusives."

[Name removed]

33. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RazzleDazzle]

46. Let's be really clear -- there's a SIGNIFICANT difference in

not crediting where you originally happened to see a story written, and then went on to completely write your own story, versus

LIFTING a story in part or entirely and not crediting the writer or original publication. The latter is a serious copyright violation. The former is -- well, let me put it this way. The difference between the two is so huge IMO that you look ridiculous carping on the so-called "ethics violation." They are a class, or several, apart.

It could be that in official, rarified journalism circles -- which takes it way, way out of the Mainstream -- you are correct, but I can tell you as someone interested in journalism, interested in copyright issues, interested in the political and current events news, I could care less.

FURTHER, Cocoa him/herself admits that this horrible crime that RawStory is accused of by him stopped about a year ago.

What the fuck are you people carping about? Do you work for AP or something, trying to distract from the far bigger and more terrible sin here? If not, you coulda fooled me. If not, you ought to go point to this thread and ask them to hire you retroactively. You're doing a wonderful job for them and ought to have some compensation.

[Maddy McCall]

48. Nope...it's still plagiarism.

Read an introductory English 101 manual. It's crystal clear.

[uppityperson]

50. not crediting research sources is plagiarism?

not just bad manners and a lower grade? I thought plagiarism was copy/pasting with minor changes.

From dictionary.com (hate to be accused of plagiarism)
plagiarize:
1. To use and pass off (the ideas or writings of another) as one's own.
2. To appropriate for use as one's own passages or ideas from (another).


v. intr.

To put forth as original to oneself the ideas or words of another.
-------------------
So, to what extent does a person own an idea? I can see copy/paste bad, and some ideas bad, but to what extent?

[Cocoa]

53. if you see something on a blog

and you put it on your blog, you should say where you got it. Everyone knows that, and almost everyone does it.

[Maddy McCall]

57. Any time you borrow someone else's work and you don't credit it...

you are plagiarizing.

It's this concept that most college students just can't understand--that borrowing someone else's ideas and not giving them credit for those ideas is plagiarism.

I think that all news websites that want to have a name as being the "scoop" run the risk of plagiarizing, because in their rush to appear first, they become careless in attributing, which, ethically, is mandatory.

[RazzleDazzle]

72. No, it's not plagiarism. Poor dear is confused. I can see that now.

It's considered "poor scholarship" in academic circles and perhaps whatever equivalent there is in journalism, but all that's irrelevent anyway since this tag team has not made their case that RawStory did anything of the sort. :shrug:

FWIW, ideas can't be copyrighted, which should give you a clue. Ethics, good scholarship, common courtesy, etc., etc., do come into play, of course, but I think the really big crime certain people here are trying to make this -- "this" which hasn't even been shown that I can see, let alone proven -- is utterly ridiculous.

[radio4progressives]

51. "steal" stories from a wire service?

how do you steal a story that is filed with a wire service?

it's intended to be widley distributed, isn't it?

Or do you mean "credited" ? Surely you're not accusing the journalists at Raw Story of failing in crediting sources? I mean you're not making such a claim right here on DU, are you??

surely, you made a "typo"?

[Maddy McCall]

58. Well, you post story without the by-line and then say that you scooped it.

That's how you do it.

You post a story written by a NYT's reporter--a story with a by-line or AP notation--and you drop the byline or the AP notation and claim it as your own work.

That is one way to do it.

[radio4progressives]

60. mistakes happen..

why not point out the mistakes privately, why bring up vague charges of plagerism in the public? I would personally consider that unprofessional, and destructive to fellow guild associates..

why do this here?

[Maddy McCall]

63. Um, because this thread's topic is related to the discussion below it.

Because RS is accusing AP of something RS has done in the past. Merits discussion, because it's related.

[radio4progressives]

52. self delete duplicate

[Maddy McCall]

64. "typo," I presume?

:D

[radio4progressives]

67. I accidently double clicked on "post message" button..

so i deleted the duplicate.. it was confusing two of the same posts.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

73. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're factually incorrect.

[HereSince1628]

3. Too proud, too arrogant, too above blogs to give proper credit?

That is just so . . . last century.

So much for respect of each others' efforts.

[EST]

11. This certainly demonstrates the need for rawstory.

One more bit in the continuing deterioration of AP. They don't get it that they are contributing to their own demise-too bad for them.

[0007]

15. The propaganda machine v the truth....

[rawstory]

30. RAW STORY response to this thread / re: NYT/AP advances

We often advance NYT, LAT, WP, and AP stories as they are leaked to us. However-- we always say that they came from these sources... Also, if we've said exclusive, it's because the story hadn't moved online at the time we posted it -- no, we always credit on such stories and then drive traffic to those sites -- we end up promoting their work. Anyway, if there are instances, please point out where we haven't -- glad to make amends. thanks - john=

[Name removed]

34. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Roland99]

47. Isn't the AP owned by the same parent company that owns ES&S?

Republican bastards.

[Canuckistanian]

49. So, does that mean..

... bloggers can lift AP stories and publish them on their own as original work now?

Since AP doesn't recognize blogs or credit them, it can't really turn around and sue them for plagiarism, can they?

[radio4progressives]

70. lol!

:rofl: Good question!

[stop the bleeding]

71. Good point

[Notoverit]

54. Freedom of the press means never having to say "I'm sorry" Or was that

love?

[stop the bleeding]

55. I am GLAD THAT RAW STORY EXISTS!

I was away for a few hours and now I come back to this?

Jeez I'm gonna go take a shower. :beer:

[entanglement]

56. AP = Absolute Pigs

[kpete]

68. Re Focus:

Re Focus:

The Associated Press has confirmed using a Raw Story report as the basis for a Mar. 14 article detailing a change to national security clearance policies but has refused to issue credit for the piece.

Is this right or wrong?

Should we be making excuses for the AP?

Why wouldn't the AP give Raw Story credit?

They admit using the story (Is that enough?)

So Raw Story has a legitimate gripe

Respect them or not, they deserve the credit.

Thanks for listening...

[stop the bleeding]

69. I'm listening

I think that RS is an invaluable source for my link into current news.

I could find hairs to split on almost any topic that I encounter on a daily basis, but I usually do not for the simple reason either your on the same team or your not.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

75. Bingo. Excellent, and simplified analysis for those who....

...continue to question Raw Story.