Attributes or Sloppy Journalism?

I noticed he lifted an entire paragraph out of the StarTribune article. Is linking to the article considered an attribute?

BTW, when I read the title here I saw, "Attributes or Sloppy Joes". Shows where my mind is at.

Linking is not a method for giving attribute.

I suspect (though I do not know) that many of the rules of journalism are thrown out the window. As I understand it, it is the views that are garnered that qualify these articles as "social" material and I would never consider any of it journalism. Personally, if I want news I'll go to a news source, at least there I know a real journalist wrote the article. I didn't follow your link because I try not to feed into this pathetic way of making money. I honestly wish Gather would go back to the way it used to be.

I never thought I would see the day when we'd expect any standards out of Gather (other than when we tell each other we can't spell, LOL).

Well, I'm not Gather, but I can tell you that Mindful Poetry has standards and I honestly don't think I've allowed anything sub-par past me yet.

Sure, there's poetry that is pretty raw, but there's no non-form/non-structured poetry in that group.

I raise my torch of excellence, Sir Swanson! :-)

I use Gather for entertainment and exchange including information, but not news. There are plenty of news sources to check and cross check. When a Gather post reads like a newspaper headline, even by someone whose writing I otherwise respect, I move on.
"Sloppy journalism" = dishonesty, IMHO.

That's strong language in your last statement, John, but one that I agree with.

DITTO John's thoughts!

When I read a 'news' story here, I take it with a grain of salt. If you have a problem with a story, report it. No harm in holding people to standards.

Right, Margaret. I also read the News here at arm's length. If a story truly catches my interest, I put the key words in a search engine and find another source.

I'm not willing to take the time to report all the weak writing in Gather News however.

I can believe that Gather has given these people some sort of guideline, and I suspect that most of them ignore parts of that guideline. With the number of writers being chastised by Gather for TOS violations (many of which deal with copyright infringement), it seems strange that the news and social writers are not being held to the same standard. As Michael mentioned, it seems that Gather feels that including a link is the same as attributing.

More than likely, Gather HQ does not have the resources to provide adequate review of the articles.

I wonder if Gather HQ actually considers the news provided here to be substantial. Rather, I guess what really matters is if Gather members/readers consider the News at Gather to stand up on its own.

Judging from the hundreds and thousands of views that those articles garner, I guess folks do think the News is worthy.

sigh

I think you're right about Gather not having the resources to catch everything that goes on. I know that when I report something they take action pretty quickly.

The problem with the social and news writers is that there are so many of them. It would take a good-sized staff working all day doing nothing but reviewing them.

I don't believe any of these paid people actually write 'news' articles. Many of them cut and paste from other sites and Gather doesn't give a tuppeny damn!

Perhaps that's the New World Order? :-/
Keep it shallow--keep it light--keep it moving--don't think too much.

It might also be that Gather doesn't care if anyone reads the articles and just cares about how many visits to the site an article receives.

I'm a writer but I'm not a journalist.

I have a few questions about attribution:

It seems to me that when a journalist either publishes an article, free-lance; or else publishes, while on staff, for a publication, he, or she, will often conduct research for many different kinds of articles--even if its simple fact-checking.

Articles that we see in publications, of all kinds, do not always include direct attribution, of all facts and information, gathered from other sources, do they?

Unless verbatim passages are used, or else entries used that are noticeably close to the actual words (or else lines/paragraphs closely mirroring unprecedented or pinpointed ideas), is the journalist actually obligated to make attribution?

My quandary may be the result of my own lack of experience, as a journalist. But wouldn't a journalist, in effect, be cobbling together a mini-doctoral thesis, each and every time that journalist writes an extensive article, thereby requiring the chronicling and documentation of source material, for the article?; wherein, there, therefore, might be something tantamount to a footnoted bibliography, sprinkled throughout the article?

The article, referenced for this Post, offers links within the feature. Why isn't that often sufficient for attribution, with on-line articles?

Brett, I like the many angles you bring up. I'd like to get back to this later.

Good question. I feel terrible that I did not read this sooner?