Pilot dirt continues
Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 11:28AM 
By The Real Voice
The Daily Pilot finally got around to reporting the news that the landmark Arches restaurant had closed its doors on Saturday, ending the run of Newport Beach’s oldest restaurant. Of course, it didn’t give credit to the Daily Voice, which broke the story Sunday night. This is a tradition with the Pilot; it routinely uses other papers as tip sheets but refuses to acknowledge, as other papers, websites and bloggers do, where the story first appeared.
Another recent example: the Voice broke the story that executive director David Muller was out at the Newport Harbor Nautical Museum. The Register wrote a follow-up story crediting the Voice. The Pilot wrote a follow-up story with no mention of the Voice.
Perhaps the biggest victim of the Pilot’s refusal to give credit where credit’s due is Corona del Mar Today. Until the Pilot starts doing the right thing, the Real Voice will reveal exactly which media source from which the Pilot got its story.
If you have a news tips, confidential or otherwise, for The Real Voice, e-mail us.
Daily Pilot in Media
Reader Comments (10)
The SPJ code of ethics states that the motives of those who wish to remain anonymous must be questioned. So, I ask you, Bill, I mean Mr. Real Voice, why the smoke and mirrors? It's easy to criticize behind a veil of anonymity.
These are my own views, and not necessarily those of the Daily Pilot. I'm writing on my own, not as a representative of the paper.
Brianna Bailey
The Real Voice is the editorial voice of the Daily Voice and is either written or approved by co-publishers Tom Johnson and Bill Lobdell. That's not exactly a veil of anonymity.
Yeah, it's funny how you neglected to mention that until I totally called you out.
These are my own views, and not necessarily those of the Daily Pilot. I'm writing on my own, not as a representative of the paper.
Brianna Bailey
Ethically, this is the way it should be handled as long as you brought up ethics.
Google News Alert for: "Newport-Mesa"
Arches restaurant closes down
OCRegister
The story was first reported by the Newport-Mesa Daily Voice, and the Daily Pilot details a permit dispute behind the closing. ...
Tom Johnson
Has the Daily Voice become the TMZ of Newport-Mesa? Talk about digging up dirt - For serious news I still will read the Pilot.
I can only speak for myself, but when I write a story, I actually talk to multiple sources and do my own reporting. You don't own the news, nobody does.
These are my own views, and not necessarily those of the Daily Pilot. I'm writing on my own, not as a representative of the paper.
Brianna Bailey
This is your "dirt"? Weak.
Brittany,
Did you ever hear of "attribution" ?
It doesn't matter if you did your own reporting or not -- after the fact.
If you were an ethical reporter, you would attribute a story (not your entire story) but the story itself to the media outlet that first reported it. This is not a rule that applies forever, unless of course the story was an exclusive when it was first published and the story is well known to have been broken by a particular media outlet or reporter(s). Like say 'Watergate' for example or even something less well known like the closing of the Arches in Newport.
Let's say a person read The Daily Voice, or the OC Register or whatever publication of your choice and calls, emails, or you happen to see or were made aware of a news story or something published somewhere yourself. It doesn't matter if its in the Daily Voice or Brittany personal blog or the New York or LA Times, its the ETHICAL thing to do to attribute the story to the original source who reported it first.
This only applies when there is significant time between the original report and any follow-up reports. 10 seconds later would not warrant attribution if the subject of a story is well known publicly. Example, if a plane crashes at John Wayne airport and the Daily Voice posts a story about the crash at 10A.. and the Daily Pilot at 10:02AM. But, If a significant period of time has passed (that can be minutes, hours, days etc. depending on the kind of exclusive the original story is)
Attribution should ALWAYS apply if the reporter in question actually was aware of the previously reported material and used it as a basis or starting point of their own reporting.
I'm very aware of these issues as I am an investigative reporter who routinely breaks original and exclusive stories that ethical media outlets and reporters attribute too and the unethical ones don't. Even not being aware of a story, if it's exclusively reported is no excuse not to correct a story with proper attribution after the fact when you become aware of the orginal reporting.
There is a blogger in LA named Kevin Roderick who does this all the time, its a sleazy unethical approach to journalism to say, "well as far as I know". It's irrelevant, If you are made aware (even if you didn't know in the first place ) it's your ethical obligation to attribute a story to its original source via attribution.
It's one line or reference and the only reason unethical reporters don't do it is their bosses don't like one media outlet promoting another, or a reporters own ego problems, or other reasons related to how your audience/readership is attained.
That's the bottom line.
The lack of ethics in journalism is now a very widespread problem.
I assure you if everyone in it was ethical, then you'd be attributed too when you break a story, just as you should be doing when anybody else does.
That's what I do, because although corporate media bosses, financial issues and petty egos get in the way, it's the ethical and credible thing to do.
I didn't even go to journalism school and I know that.
Here's what the SPJ says about "attribution"
<< SPJ admonishes all media outlets to take special care so that proper attribution is given at all times – especially when working with multiple news delivery platforms. For help in making strong ethical decisions, please consult the Society’s Code of Ethics (www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp) or call SPJ’s Ethics Hotline at (317) 927-8000, ext. 208.>>
You should give them a call if you need any clarifications.
Regards,
Eric Longabardi
Producer/Investigative Journalist
TeleMedia News Productions/TheEnterpriseReport.com
Newport Beach, CA
Your primer on jounalistic ethics is valuable and instructive, Eric. And also, sadly, irrelevant. Journalistic ethics have never been seriously tested in a competitive marketplace driven by instantaneous, worldwide electronic communication in the hands of "citizen journalists" and lazy consumers. Contemporary journalism in the internet age is jungle warefare...survival of the fittest. And when it comes to survival, ethics are usually the first casualty.
Byron .. I wouldn't disagree with you on the second part of your post at all.
Glad you found it valuable and instructive nonetheless.
You have to know what journalism ethics are in order to follow them or not.
It's true the survival of the fittest in the new net world order is a function of the marketplace, as you describe, but it has nothing to do with journalism ethics as a stand alone notion.
An ethical journalist can survive just as well as unethical one. It just is a function of how and what you are attempting to do to get your eyeballs and generate an audience.
The internet is probably more inclusive of ethical journalism than past mediums because of the ability to generate content without doing anything other than linking to another location of content. That is itself a form of proper attribution.