Comments on: Plagiarists should at least be *competent* plagiarists – Media Ooops 002 http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2010/12/13/plagiarists-should-at-least-be-competent-plagiarists-media-ooops-002/ A conversation. Mon, 21 May 2012 12:30:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: peugeot 1.1 http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2010/12/13/plagiarists-should-at-least-be-competent-plagiarists-media-ooops-002/#comment-17539 peugeot 1.1 Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:27:24 +0000 http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2010/12/13/plagiarists-should-at-least-be-competent-plagiarists-media-ooops-002/#comment-17539 Lovely post, thanks for taking the time to put your ideas down Lovely post, thanks for taking the time to put your ideas down

]]> By: Matt http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2010/12/13/plagiarists-should-at-least-be-competent-plagiarists-media-ooops-002/#comment-17538 Matt Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:56:14 +0000 http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2010/12/13/plagiarists-should-at-least-be-competent-plagiarists-media-ooops-002/#comment-17538 Smart enough to spot a porn-spammer, darlin'. Smart enough to spot a porn-spammer, darlin’.

]]> By: mattwardman http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2010/12/13/plagiarists-should-at-least-be-competent-plagiarists-media-ooops-002/#comment-17537 mattwardman Tue, 14 Dec 2010 10:19:23 +0000 http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2010/12/13/plagiarists-should-at-least-be-competent-plagiarists-media-ooops-002/#comment-17537 Agreed :-). M Agreed :-) .

M

]]> By: Peter Demain http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2010/12/13/plagiarists-should-at-least-be-competent-plagiarists-media-ooops-002/#comment-17536 Peter Demain Tue, 14 Dec 2010 04:34:02 +0000 http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2010/12/13/plagiarists-should-at-least-be-competent-plagiarists-media-ooops-002/#comment-17536 Let's not forget that some of these distorting principles transpose to libellious reporting in that guilt-ridden rag: Take a court case, cherry pick bits and pieces, do a hackneyed citing of sources, twist the story with hyperbolic, sneering or misleading scribbling that makes those you supposedly suspect look bad. Doesn't matter if it's a dismissed case, or one in which defendents were acquitted - its been done time and time again regardless. More amorality points if those you victimize can't afford to sue. Oh and Mr. Dacre the DM editor chairs the Press Complaints Commission: that's not a conflict of interest...oh, no. Even if a citizen does get a settlement in court the damage is done; people you know read the article/s and being non-rich the likelihood of a frontpage apology remains unlikely. As well-used as this phrase is; that and other papers knowingly ruin lives. The Daily Mail is amoral profiteering passively posturing as being of ethical weight, but so are others - the Mail just happens to be the biggest offender. To get on topic...those who read the Eye's <i>'How Journalism Works'</i> know barely-concealed pilfering of pieces is dissapointingly common amongst all papers. Pete, editor at <a href="http://www.dirtygarnet.com/" rel="nofollow">Dirty Garnet</a>. Let’s not forget that some of these distorting principles transpose to libellious reporting in that guilt-ridden rag:

Take a court case, cherry pick bits and pieces, do a hackneyed citing of sources, twist the story with hyperbolic, sneering or misleading scribbling that makes those you supposedly suspect look bad. Doesn’t matter if it’s a dismissed case, or one in which defendents were acquitted – its been done time and time again regardless.

More amorality points if those you victimize can’t afford to sue. Oh and Mr. Dacre the DM editor chairs the Press Complaints Commission: that’s not a conflict of interest…oh, no. Even if a citizen does get a settlement in court the damage is done; people you know read the article/s and being non-rich the likelihood of a frontpage apology remains unlikely.

As well-used as this phrase is; that and other papers knowingly ruin lives. The Daily Mail is amoral profiteering passively posturing as being of ethical weight, but so are others – the Mail just happens to be the biggest offender.

To get on topic…those who read the Eye’s ‘How Journalism Works’ know barely-concealed pilfering of pieces is dissapointingly common amongst all papers.

Pete, editor at Dirty Garnet.

]]>