Boring batsmen and copycat newspapers
Published by Yazad Jal February 1st, 2005 in MediaWhile reading this in today’s TOI, I had a strong feeling of déjŕ vu. I was right. The Times cooly picks up stuff from Steven Lynch’s Cricinfo column and all the attribution it will deign to give is “according to a website.”
Why am I picking on the Times when it wasn’t the only newspaper to pick up the story? Because all others credited cricinfo.com
Aside to Gaurav: this is the kind of behaviour which deserves a bashing.
While I am not a great fan of what TOI does, I do think that the usage of ‘copycat’ is a bit out of line here. After all, improper attribution does not equate to being a copycat.
Was looking for a catchy title. Somehow “Boring batsmen and improper attribution” didn’t hit off that well.
What the Times did was copying with barely any attribution. The others who copied gave full attribution. (follow some of the links from google news on the issue)
One question: If everybody hates the TOI then why does everybody read it and link to it all the time?
I don’t particularly like the TOI, so I don’t read it. Simple.
One question: If everybody hates the TOI then why does everybody read it and link to it all the time?
I don’t particularly like the TOI, so I don’t read it. Simple.
Well, I do not understand how attributing the copy to ANI qualifies as copying.
While I do not agree with the practice of not mentioning the names of competing products, this is hardly anything new and is done by a lot of other publications and is the least irksome of TOI’s sins.
Well, when I was doing my Masters, improper attribution in a report or paper would have resulted in me failing the subject itself. I guess (Indian) journalists aren’t subjected to the same standards.
http://.net/
Was looking for a catchy title. Somehow “Boring batsmen and improper attribution” didn’t hit off that well.