Truemors
Now Public News, reporting the news or merely copying and gossiping!? RACQ by Paschen | June 24, 2008 at 11:59 pm | 2608 views | 79 comments 
by zichi 
by zichi
(I was asked to add Opinion to this, yet after some reserching and deleberation I concluded that this is actually (RACQ) Report/ Analutical/ Critical/ Questioning; it is not an opinion, it is ("RACQ")
For as long as I can remember, I have always read the news, due to my fathers influence and the fact that I care about what is happening around me and I feel responsible too. For those of us who live in a democracy we are responsible for the day to day events and as to how these are being dealt with!
We are responsible for those unable to speak up for themselves, as well as those unable to speak out at all! As Voltaire said,: "I do not agree with what you are saying, however I will fight to the death, so you may be allowed to say it!"
I have great hopes for the news on NowPublic and that is why I joined myself and yet got cut as many of us did by being unethical as I would see it!
What we are doing is not illegal, but in some cases it is not really legal either and certainly not ethical whatsoever!
There are good and bad news agencies, as with everything nothing is perfect, we should try to strive for perfection, reporting and commenting on the news!
We copy and paste, highlighting at random, sending it off, in part or as a whole. When checking the original article one realizes that the copy and paste takes the original meaning of the whole out of context. That is not news, its propaganda for one's own agenda or opinion!
After talking to some journalist friends at DW and CGBC, I realized that they have a valid point in seeing NowPublic as a destructive media, to some extend, which could in the long run, make the news even less objective and more propagandistic than it is already!
Journalists' who work for the major league players are required to remain objective and neutral in their reporting with ethical standards. Opinions, has in an editorial piece are clearly indicated. This in spite of some government pressures and frequently going against the wishes of the owners of the media.
Today, most of the journalists' from the newspaper, 'Le Republicain du Niger' are imprisoned or exiled and the newspaper now as to be published outside of the country with very little resources and the journalists' living on the bread line and risking the safety of their lives to report the news objectively and truthfully!
When we copy and paste and highlight to the extend that the meaning of the original story is distorted or destroyed we are making a disservice to all the journalists' who suffered to report the truth. In my book that is unethical! Although, it may not be illegal, or at least a grey zone. Its impossible to regulate the internet which is something I wouldn't want to see because freedom must be given, especially the freedom of expression. However, the freedom of expression by others, as in the case of these journalists' should also be respected and there should be responsibility with ethical values and correct behavior when we use those stories for our own reporting and commenting so the original truth remains in tact.
We do not pay nor do we contribute to organizations such as Reuters but we use them! You may say, 'we are not paid also' and we are generating profit. By doing that we weaken the existing media and some of their joint organizations. This may one day result in the disappearance of the free and neutral news all together! Maybe not, yet the danger is real and it is there and we may innocently or naively contribute to it.
Think about it from a Moral and legal perspective as two lawyers or two Philosophers debating two or more sides of a subject in order to a arrive at fair conclusion acceptable to all!
Do not get me wrong though, I support NowPublic and I am happy it exists, I do however question some of our practices and our ethics, including myself, pointing the finger at myself first before pointing it at others!
I have read things here that did actually shock me such as, and I quote, "YOU SHOULD BE SHOT IN THE HEAD." or " MORON, YOU ARE A M. F. !"
Hum, I could go on and on, some of this should actually go to court in an ideal world and the people saying it should be banned permanently or at least for a period long enough to help them think it over and apologize publicly that is!
Now Public News has enough people around the globe to actually report the news as they see it, and has it is happening, in their back yard and affecting them, in respectful, neutral and if possible in an objective manner with a set of ethic rules to be followed. This without highlighting nor copying at random without at least the consent of the author of the original article or news!
Why? Well, Journalist such as at the BBC, CGBC, DW, ARD, ZDF, NHK, LIBERATION, LE MONDE, DIE ZEIT, LE REPUBLICAIN DU NIGER... and many more do try to report the news objectively and with a very high standard of ethics as well. Those media are under constant stress and pressure to survive and to stay ethical and objective as well has neutral as much as humanly possible and this in spite of Government pressures and adds being pulled out because they dared to go against one of their sponsors!
Now I may be wrong in my views and as to how I perceive the whole matter, however I do believe that we should think about it, and maybe even take some positive action for the sake of the future of freedom of the news and freedom of expression!
Thank you for reading this and maybe I will read some constructive criticism and ideas from you! Respectfully U. Paschen
Add a comment Comments (79) 
at 03:07 on June 29th, 2008
Thank you for your last comments and interest in this subject, the story and all the great comments made here! Worth making a study group and implementing some of all this!
lisam3, I do tend to agree with you and so do many more here as well, nevertheless part of this web page is to bring out the news as every other news agency and the other part is to bring out a different news that is public powered and filling a gab that the main stream Media cannot. Where the difficulty of balancing it all and bringing out News not creating a new matrix that actually may block the public news from being accesible!
Barry Artiste, thank you for your input and feelings on this Article and the comments so far. you do make some valid point and I do agree with you on most of them. Opinion, News, Reporting, Analizing, Critical viewing and Questioning can be very hard to define at times and may vary depending how you ask. Has you say your self Some of the Media or Reporters can not render nor give an Opinion with the News since they are in some cases trapped by sponsors or others, why the publicly funded Media was created, this one was suppose to be impparcial and protected from Government pressures as well as Lobby groups. In some countries that actually works rather well and they do a good a great Job, however they are limited as well and can only report so much, for one budgets are always being cut by Government when ever they can. Yes PublicNews has its place and is needed, that point has never really being questioned. Yet are we helping or are we hindering the news is more one of the many questions, this Article and as you read your self the comments intention is to make NowPublic better, more accessible and less confusing, since some do feel that we are creating a Matrix of sorts no longer being informative or helpful. They do have a point and we should look into that since we do want News here! Further we do not want to hinder the news nor freedom of expression here and we need to think of our impact and how we will affect free speach and freedom of the press in long and short run since I for one do not want to end up with less freedom of the press because of some of the things we may do here or else where, yet I want and so do others more Freedom, yet does that not imply wisdom, respect of others and ethical values to be uphold, as well as some self Policing, or some one may but in and start regulating and implementing Law and order so to speak! That would be exactly the opposite from what any of us wants, yet we may have caused it in a way! I would like to talk more with you and others about those point and what your views are to them!
danesller0127, Thank you for your comment and the support, Well you read all the comments and liked them and so did I by the way. Yes Rob Walker made some good comments here and I did ask him for some clearification as feed back and still hope he will get back to us here! mpress did say some interesting things as well and her agreed with djermano to as I do to some extend. Some of things he said do not make sense to me though and I did reply and asked him as well for some feed back and clearification on what he said and really means.
More Power as you say here is maybe in a way what this is all about, preserving the freedom of expression we have and building on that, not destroying it or loosing it. Yet Freedom does imply responsability as well as duty and wisdom in order to preserve it and stragthen it!
Thank you again for all your great comments and input, I do learn a lot her and it makes me think about a lot of points that have never crossed my mind and I hope the same goes for all! I hope to hear more from you and still wait for the top to join in since many questions here need to be anthered by the ruling body of nowpublic and this article and the comments especially the comments should be read by the ruling body and funding members of NowPublic!
Ideas need action as well or they die!
at 18:20 on June 29th, 2008
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
I don't think there is anything wrong here as long and the contributor links to the original story so that readers can see the quote in its original context AND the author of the original story is named as the source of the quote. That is all the law asks of us (plagiarism laws).
We can help by reminding those who break the law how to abide by the law (use a quote, name the source), we don’t need open debate on the issue. Its too straightforward to need that kind of energy wasted. Just take it upon yourself to comment to anyone not playing by the rules of fair play.
at 19:38 on June 29th, 2008
And don't forget Colesakick, repeat offenders should be carted away and put in a "Now Public Iron Coffin with Spikes on the Inside"!
Hey I don't enforce the Rules, I just make em up for Jordan to apply.
at 03:37 on June 30th, 2008
Thank you colesakick for your two comments and the link! Now in the article above as well as in all the comments, the subject of Copying and Highlighting is only a small part of the issue at hand and no one did question its leguallity but its Ethical aspect has been questioned, further the issue of marking, was broth up, ranking, quality, missinformation, bullying and much more, I invite you to read the Article and the Comments again to see for your self!
Thank you again Barry Artist for your latest two comments, Yes I agree with you and djermano on the spelling part and that it is somewhat nice to be cut some slack here in that regard, something I did bring up on my article "Japan, the Lab Top Computer, the Law and my two cents worth!" I would like to have a better spell checker and maybe even a Dictaphone that works, well maybe in the future! I like the idea of coffin with spikes, however only metaphorically though!
Thank you again for all your comments and Ideas as well as suggestions, it is great reading you all and learning as well as reading different perspectives! I hope to hear more!
at 08:29 on June 30th, 2008
I read this story a few days ago and I definitely agree with you. In order to report the news you gotta be there..You gotta get your own shots etc..even if you are just a citizen reporter..When I first became acquainted with Now Public I thought, man, they got a bunch of good reporters/photographers, then I found out they were spamming and taking stuff off the web. What more can I say. Some people gotta get a life..
at 08:33 on June 30th, 2008
good stuff:
Paschen, I like this story. It's good stuff.
at 23:51 on June 30th, 2008
ACE PRESTON, Thank you for your support on this Article, I believe this to be an important subject and the comments here are rather good with many more ideas than I did even think of, something that I believe needs to be put into action or at least followed up on! Thank you for taking the time to read all this and for your input as well. I tent to agree with you that it would be better to get your own shots and words, making it personal! Thank you for your input, I do appreciate it very much!
at 07:51 on July 17th, 2008
good stuff:
Paschen, I like this story. It's good stuff.
You seem to have really struck a chord with so many here on NP.
On the idea that quoting can be mis-quoting: There are already enough media outlets who quote out of context without us adding to that. They're called "Network News." If you don't think the major TV/Newspaper outlets don't have a slant on the world, then you're kidding yourself. That said, to mis-represent the sources we use is to do them and us a gross mis-service. It's easy to find a quote that would tell any side of any story, but if we're aspiring to journalistic integrity, then we need to be as close and true to the facts as we can be.
As for the abusive commentary: I've only been here a week or so, and I'm already ticked off with the spam. I haven't been attacked like some of us have, but we're in urgent need of a "Delete Spam" option. When I first clicked on the "moderate" tab at the top of one of my postings, I was really disappointed that it only moderated the media attached to the story and not the comments.
Thanks for starting this debate.
at 12:36 on July 17th, 2008
Paschen, I thought I would revisit this in light of Zichi's post about leaving and Big T's also-excellent article about NP needing changes.
First, just a quick comment about Highlighting, which I didn't have time to address before. Someone had expressed concern about a Highlight taking something out of context. That's a valid concern--but there's another side to that.
When someone properly uses Highlight, they only excerpt a *short* section. Not the whole danged thing. Not 3/4 of it. Not most of all of it in several different boxes. EXCERPT.
As far as context--the link to the original story will give the full article. The poster's commentary will provide insight into the poster's take on this (exception--major breaking news, when we put something up fast, fast and add commentary later, and note I said MAJOR news). Also, each reader is responsible for following the link and reading the full article.
The other day I got mildly jumped by someone for not providing xyz. Well, had that reader actually read the full article, he would have seen that the article covered xyz, his area of interest. I find that when members don't read the full materials in the link but comment anyway that something often gets lost in the dialogue.
As far as copy and paste: everyone here who's ever been in actual physical danger from working as a "real" journalist in the real world, hold up your hands, cyberly. I have (waving hand). Journalists out there in Zimbabwe, war zones, and reporting on crime and corruption in their home territories take horrible risks.
When people copy and paste their work, or their photos (and we have one staff favorite who constantly steals copyrighted AP/Reuters photos from the African region and posts them here) they are, IMHO, beneath contempt. Someone new who doesn't understand that because "it's on the internet" it's not free, and not theirs to take and post under their own name as though it's theirs, gets one free pass, until it's explained to them.
After that, they're willingly stealing material that others sometimes have risked their very lives for, which means them thieves and vampires, too. It's hard work to be a "real" full-time journalist if you're doing serious, hard journalism even in say, politics, let alone in dangerous situations.
However, one big issue I have with NP is that staff will, unless you hold their feet to the fire constantly, ignore theft. They like getting these things that will build readership. And those of us who've constantly pointed out the theft have paid a price with anger and punishment from staff. I could name one member with one of those hats who merrily got away with theft from a horror zone from staff, until two members constantly commented on it. Staff never backed us in public.The guy still, last I knew, had his hat.
Zichi and Big T also nailed some things in their articles and comments. Now Public can be many things--it can be a chance to share news and commentary from other resources with our own commentary. We can provide our own news and commentary. But when we do these things, we need to do so with the understanding that we are required to do so honestly, and that someone else may come along and check on these things.
If any of us are going to publish in a public place like NP (vs. your own blog) we must take care to set high standards for ourselves.But no matter how high our personal standards are, the standards of NP staff must be the first to be above board, objective, fair, reasonable, and consistent.
When staffers publish whole articles as highlights, when they protect members who steal, when they protect favored members who bait and flame, when they consistently monkey with the front page in order to a) pull someone down and editor is mad at b)push a favorite up fast, regardless of the material or how members have reacted to it or c) for their own personal or corporate reasons, that's just plain wrong. And when a staffer comes along and repeatedly GS's proven cricket spam and plagiarism that members have worked hard to identify, that's wrong.
I'm sick of seeing good material get shoved aside, while a staff favorite's material shoots to the top 5 with maybe 50 views and 2 comments.I'm sick of seeing staff bury material from those who displease them--and we all know it happpens. I'm really really tired of staff being inconsistent with their applications of flags and comments--let alone their manipulation of the front page not for editorial reasons, but for personal/corporate reasons.
If staff chooses to select the top 5 themselves, and have it not be based on members's flags and comments as well as views and staff flags, then they need to be above-board and say so. They need to tell us that they will select the top 5. And they need to tell us, precisely, what their criteria is--and stick to it.
I've worked in some really powerful newsrooms, and there is a way that stories are chosen for top slots. This new way of allowing the membership to participate in that selection means that either a) the membership's reactions are factored in fairly or b)if the membership's reactions don't factor in that the staff says so.
I don't like it when I see an editor updating someone else's story to roll it back through and get more readership for that favored member--and also knock out another contributor in the categories boxes. NP talks constantly about transparency, but they have a lot of secret stuff going on.
And I also think that staff needs to understand that being condescending and patronizing to members isn't professional--and isn't going to cut it. Many times, the staffer with the crown has little or no experience at all, and they feel perfectly free to talk down to someone who has decades more experience. That note to Zichi was so patronizing that it's no wonder it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
Did ya'll know that sometimes, when you see a crown suddenly pop up on someone new, there is an intern at work?
Staff also needs to get over being threatening--and then making it worse by sending out a form letter announcing the threat of banning and whatever your current punishment is. Don't they realize that members actually talk *to* each other? When you get a snotty note and then also realize that it's a form snotty note, it reinforces the prevalent idea idea and feeling that staff doesn't quite see us as real people, but instead as bits in their machine.
The Vancouver office is not Mt. Olympus. This is my breaking news of the day!
If someone who has a crown, especially staff members, and all that power, then I want to know more about them. I want their full name and I want their C.V.
If you want power, then step up to the plate and tell us who you are and what entitles you to be chosen for that power. I don't mind working with younger people at all--in fact, one of the greatest and most valuable portions of my life was the older, more experienced people who mentored and taught me, and I love sharing both ways across that generational difference--but I do mind when they are anonymous in terms of background, and so taken up with their "eminence" that they don't bother to slow down, listen, and learn, too.
Frankly, staff could use a course in people skills. The snotty notes we get, the patronizing tone, and the constant regurgitation of the "we hear your concerns, we thank you, we will get back to you" is starting to grate like sitting on the phone on hold hearing the message about how much the company cares about you.
NP also needs to be upfront about who they pay, and why. And they have paid people--and one I know of was simply because the member said, in essence, pay me or I don't provide original work. Nice.
I know of one, and maybe two, contributors who've gotten some money, and well-deserved. But do any of us know the criteria? No. If NP wishes to pay some members, then they need to be upfront and say that they do sometimes make monetary awards--and then tell us how they choose.
Members here have formed friendships, and we talk to each other. I think that NP hasn't quite realized that. We're not individual machine units around the globe who they can deal with as isolated bits--we talk to each other.
Now, more of us are speaking in the open, too, about issues. And Big T ( do read his article) is right--if we are going to contribute our time, our energy, our work, our talents, we need to be clued in on what's going on. What the plans are.
Right now we labor to build another man's business. That's the bottom line. Yes, we get this publishing platorm--but NP doesn't realize that there are other, similar ones, and that although we may appreciate what we have here (and many of us have said so, repeatedly), we don't appreciate being treated like sharecroppers who are of little personal value.
People are important. And people who are powering your business--and gaining you all that nifty PR glitz, which, BTW, is only tempory--are very important.
Staff needs to respond to the hard questions, and not do the "Bold Sir Robin" thing and run away. They need to not punish members for asking questions. I'm amazed at how NP is so delighted to get people with actual experience in journalism and other investigative fields--and then is amazed when people with those talents and skills use them here, openly and directly, about NP! Sometimes it's like they think that we'll check that at the door, and sell out for a cyber hat or flag.
There's a battalion of bright, talented people here from many disciplines and backgrounds. They need to be truly appreciated--and there needs to be an understanding that people like this don't tug their forelocks, bow their heads and not get in the way of the lords of the castle.
NP has ignored, for months now, the things we're all sharing in Zichi's article, here, and on Big T's article. Many of us have said these things over and over, in emails and in public. When GE's could sit in on some editorial meetings on Skype (and BTW I have no doubt that some still are invited to Skype meetings...), these things got said. But when something is said that displeases a staff member, you will be punished. But if you suck up, you will be rewarded with your material appearing, shooting to the top, lots of staff GS flags, etc.
Why not listen to your support base and the people who will ultimately, be the ones to make your business succeed? As someone pointed out, and I'm sorry I can't remember who in all this, there's a veritable think tank here within the membership.
Now, as for payments, if they come at any point--I hope they don't use the Leaderboard. My analysis of it showed that points, based on the schedule they just recently posted, are not accurate and can be off by hundreds, against the member.
Also, the Leaderboard is skewed toward acquiring photos and videos. If you analyze the point system, which several of us have, you see very clearly that the way to NP "top ranking" is to slap up lots of highlighted material, and add lots of photos and videos. Simple. In a very short time one day I added more than 900 points worth of stuff (on my breaks, mostly)--although I only got credit for less than 300 points.
Maybe it would be a good idea to let members participate in how points are assigned.
Maybe it would be good to listen to members--and actually take action. Listen, we're not dumb. We know this is an evolving thing. Please, stop with that comment.
We also know that basic ethics, consistency, and open honesty (let alone the buzzword "transparency") doesn't change no matter what the platform, business, or project is. We also know that how you treat people doesn't change, regardless of the business. There's a lot of sheltering behind "we're evolving and growing" kind of comments.
Maybe asking the contributors how they think NP can grow would be a good thing.
Now Public would not exist without its contributors. Yes, we all know there's always a fresh new crop of newbies coming along. Yes, we all know about the courting and seduction phase. Yadda yadda.
But bottom line--the future of NP is in its contributors. The future of NP lies with the contributors who work hard to post quality material, and to do so fairly and honestly.
Yes, NP can be sold at any point, and it's easily saleable just as a stock photo and video library.
But if this really is going to be about people publishing, then it is the people who are publishing who are important. Heck, in my generation's heck-raising days, we had a slogan: Power to the People.
Still works.
The proven NP members provide consistent good material. We know what many of us like to do. There are actually "specialties" here. We have a good people base.
NP can tote up its photos and videos, office chairs and computers, and other assets.
But we are the crucial asset. And maybe it's time to listen to us--and stop telling us "thank you for your concerns", get real, and take action.
Power to the people!
p.s. get rid of the damned captcha feature for known contributors. It just takes a few programming keystrokes.
at 23:55 on July 17th, 2008
I thank you for the well written and detailed comment here PEP, I hope that many will read it, especially some of those in charge as well any one else here on NP! One has to read this for I could not resume it any better! Thank you for the links as well, Much appreciated!
at 13:39 on July 17th, 2008
P.S. Before I dash off to a belated brunch and the afternoon appointments, I'd like to share something a very wise man taught me.
He said that the people who will do the most to build your business are your critics. Your "yes men" will tell you what you want to hear. Listen to what people tell you needs fixing.
He was right.
at 00:01 on July 18th, 2008
I do agree with that Maxim, Our critics are most important to us personally as well as to any given business! Without them we cannot grow nor learn or better our self! Thank you for bringing that up PEP!
at 15:42 on July 17th, 2008
good stuff:
Paschen, I like this story. It's good stuff.
at 23:46 on July 17th, 2008
Thank you for the Flag here! I appreciate it!
at 02:53 on July 18th, 2008
good stuff:
Paschen, I like this story. It's good stuff.
at 10:32 on July 18th, 2008
good stuff:
Paschen, I like this story. It's good stuff. I think this is really well said: convincing in its argument. I totally support it. I always have a funny feeling that so much of NowPublic reports are cut 'n paste jobs, especially as, in spite of the high standards mantained by many media insitutions, even then there are personal biases.
News is socially constructed! You only have to look at the moral panic going on in the UK over juvenile killings from knife crimes, and the contradictory evidence supplied by fairly objective data this week! Just because something appears in the press does not make it true.
Some years I read of my 'disappearance' in the Bangkok Post. Someone checked with the UK Home Office and they had information hat I arrived on the Burmese border and then disappeared! All true according to the slips of Thai immigration paper, but I had secretly crossed the border and crossed back the following week. The shocking thing, when I read the report of my disappearance in the Bangkok Post I kind of believed it!
The Guardian newspaper used to show an advert of a 'skinhead' having something dropped on his head, and then used to show the same situation, only filmed from a slightly different perspective that gave the story a completely different meaning. We always need to be savvy about different perspectives . Cut 'n paste kind of gives reports an authenicity they dont necessarily have I think.
Gerrry
at 10:27 on July 18th, 2008
good stuff:
Paschen, I like this story. It's good stuff.
at 08:58 on August 14th, 2008
Other comments:
reggaewire
at 00:32 on June 25th, 2008
Paschen, I like this story. It's good stuff.
Paschen
at 00:44 on June 25th, 2008
Thank you! I do appreciate your support on this subject!
zichi
at 01:18 on June 25th, 2008
Paschen, I like this story. It's good stuff. I have added photo's of imprisoned bloggers.
Paschen
at 01:09 on June 25th, 2008
Thank you zichi, I do appreciate it very much! Maybe we can debate this some time!
Paschen
at 01:26 on June 25th, 2008
Thank you for the picture zichi! They are good and do fit!
rumana husain
at 01:37 on June 25th, 2008
this is an extremely pertinent viewpoint. i agree paschen, we should have a debate on this.
Paschen
at 01:39 on June 25th, 2008
Thank you for your comment and yes a debate would the minimum I think!
Johnny Summerton
at 01:59 on June 25th, 2008
Paschen, I like this story. It's good stuff.
Paschen
at 04:50 on June 25th, 2008
Thank you Johnny Summerton, much appreciated! Hope to hear more from you soon!
azzayindia
at 03:22 on June 25th, 2008
Paschen, I like this story. It's good stuff.
yes this has to be debated man, but it all about have and have- nots.
who are against nowpublic movement,people who already have enough in life.
It is important to highlight the stories too as the mainstream media is too busy views of those parties with which it has ideological similiarities.
Now public is an important place for those writers whose voice is pressed by the so called journalists of the mainstream media.
They think that their news is the best news.
It is very easy for those who say that apart from my news every other news in Nowpublic is Gossip,
frankly speaking you have the choice not to view that page and it will automatically dissappear.
Who are the people who are against Nowpublic people who are earning already from other news channel sources.
yes i do believe their should be some remnuration for people contributing in now public not necessarily in cash but it can be in kind.
if somebody feels nowpblic is not delivering he or she has right to unsuscribe.
yes the original writers permmission should be taken before the highlighted article is published on nowpublic but what if the editor has had a pact with the person involved in the story and he does not want more people to see it or comment on it or the story to be discussed.
In India I know how the mainstream media works.Their are channels who have been supporting either Left or Congress and that shows in their depatches is that the news we want.?
More over if you piuckup mainstream media too the stories are same with different viewpoints.
Paschen
at 06:53 on June 25th, 2008
Thank you for the input and support azzayindia! Well, you do get right into it, that is great!
Now I do not think that any one is against Now Public, at least not any one I know so far, may this be here on Now Public or elsewhere, like in the main stream Media! Yes, there may be some that do Oppose Now Public, however those will always exist no matter what the subject or the Media may be!
I do not disagree with Highlighting nor commentating or Citing someone directly or their report or article. I do simply question the ethics of it and that there is a right way of doing it and a wrong way of doing the same.
Now no one is perfect as far as I know and we do error at times to maybe even more than we like to admit our self's. Same goes for the main stream Media and all the Journalist, Reporters and Commentators; Some are rather good and uphold very high standards that one should follow and others are partisan and manipulators and maybe propagandist, with only their own agenda and narrow minded, even at times discriminating views! Even here on Now Public you may find both sides as well!
I do fully agree with you that Now Public is an important place and Medium for the Freedom of expression as well as for the News. One of the question though would be are we merely an extension of the News Maine stream or actually a positive contributor to that Medium and to the or for the information of the Public at large!?
Further questions would be how is Now Public impacting on the News and other Media in the long run, will it contribute in the way it is operating and run to more Freedom of expression and more Freedom of the Press as well as more objectivity and constructive News or will cause more of exactly the opposite and be in part the cause for less freedom of expression and a more restricted and weakened the Press Medium!?
Now we do all seem to want Freedom of expression and a free Press Medium that cannot be controlled nor manipulated by Government nor Industry or other organisations and or Individuals for the purpose of their Propaganda and their agenda. At least that is my impression here!
There for I believe we do have to question our own actions and practices so that we do not end up destroying exactly what we are trying to preserve and uphold, maybe even elaborate and strengthen!
As far as Quoting Goes, I believe this should be acceptable even without consent as long as it is done ethically and without changing the message intended by the original Author. As far as Copying goes, there I believe out of courtesy, respect and ethical values one should ask and receive permission from the author, and most Authors in my experience will grand it most of the time!
Most Journalist I know are doing an excellent Job or at least are doing the best they can under the given circumstances, Information at hand and tools available at the time!
Even here on Now Public I do trust that Most would and are doing the best they can with what they have... This however should not stop us from improving each other or one self, nor from questioning if what we are doing in the way we are doing may have a negative or positive impact in the short run as well as in the long run!
The maine Stream Media or Established Media are important and most of them are Ethical and do not see Now Public as a bad thing, if regulated properly, self Policed and upholding high Ethical standards as all Media should!
As to Different View points they are good and should always be welcome, same would go for Commentaries, Debates and analysis! As long as they are Ethical and upholding certain standards that all can agree to, the highest is what we should strive for in my opinion!
To conclude, my main quest here, is weather or not we are Ethical enough and what is our impact in the long run on the Freedom of expression and the Freedom of the Press as a hole. Further, Should we really have to tolerate Insults and threats even in Commentaries, such has I mentioned? I think not, those would be unacceptable to me at least. Languish and words are important and even if our pop stars around the World seem to be able to say little more than the "F" Word, it is still no reason for us to be so degrading as well, even though I do support a Press that can be understood by all and every one and where you do not need a PHD in order to actually understand or be able to read the Article, still we do not need to be vulgar either, simple and clear would suffice!
Thank you for you input, I hope to hear from you again!
colesakick
at 18:13 on June 29th, 2008
I don't think there is anything wrong here as long and the contributer links to the original story so that readers can see the quote in its original context AND the author of the original story is named as the source of the quote. That is all the law asks of us (plagerism laws).
we can help by reminding those who break the law how to abide by the law (use a quote, name the source)
Heritage
at 06:13 on June 25th, 2008
Paschen, I like this story. It's good stuff.
We do not pay nor do we contribute to organisations such as Reuters and yet we do use it! We are not paid either you may say, yet we do generate some profits as well! By doing that we weaken the existing media and some of their joint organisations.
I think as traditional sources of revenue for existing media companies dries up the situation will be reversed and they will rely on CJs to take up the slack.
CJ is in its infancy and debate is required. Thanks for posting.
This might be of interest of you. It is about an Australian conference on the Future of Journalism.
Paschen
at 06:41 on June 25th, 2008
I will look into it and let you know! Thank you for the information, I appreciate it!
Beaulieu
at 06:15 on June 25th, 2008
Paschen, I like this story. It's good stuff.
Paschen
at 03:41 on June 26th, 2008
Thank you for your support! I do appreciate it very much!
John E. Carey
at 06:32 on June 25th, 2008
Paschen, I like this story. It's good stuff.
Moruthane KP
at 06:50 on June 25th, 2008
I really appreciate what you are saying, it is very good stuff. I once also asked myself the same question you are asking, but i never got an answer. This thing of copying and pasting is ethically wrong, let us learn to write our own views and our own stories, everytime and everyday events do happen where we live and i beliebe is our duty tio report about them, not to wait for others to report them copy.
Thanks for this brother!
Paschen
at 06:57 on June 25th, 2008
I appreciate your input and yes you do make a good point, we need to learn to write again and maybe do some more digging as well! Thank you for your comment!
Rhonda J Mangus
at 07:08 on June 25th, 2008
Paschen, thank you for sharing your opinion with NP. NP asks that its members identify opinion submissions in the heading/title. Opinion should also be placed in the tag section. Thanks.
Paschen
at 07:35 on June 25th, 2008
News with in the News, New, Opignon, Comentarry or Critic?!
I am not sure actually and looked it up in the Dictionary, still not conclusive! I do respect and appreciate your input, however please do let me think about it and I will get back to you ASAP! If necessary I will make the change!
Paschen
at 23:22 on June 26th, 2008
Hello Rhonda J Mangus, Now I did make some changes as you desiered and I hope I fund an accepteble compromise for us all!
djermano
at 07:42 on June 25th, 2008
Dear Paschen,
I have been a victim to such bad comments, and you know what?, it does not harm me. Sticks and Stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me. Do I want to see regulation and banning here at Nowpublic? Not for a moment. Those people who post such things leave themselves forever hanging in disrepute for their poor choice of words. We know they know nothing about ethics, nor do they really sense the need to have any, but it is up to us to show them how it is needed for respecting each other.
War is a terrible issue to wrangle in, along with other sensitive topics such as abortion, gayism, sex abuse, and impeachment. It is how we handle the comments without flying off the deep end thinking we need to ban the perceived bad guy. Show him or her they're out of line, and let it go I think. That's enough. And it preserves our freedoms in writing.
As far as the other issues in copy and paste, I myself see other news reports that are of interest to me, and I do go ahead and use their article. In fact it is not breaking any laws as long as you provide their valid url address to where the article or website came from. The owners certainly want viewership, or they would not have posted such information in the first place. Can you imagine how much time it would take to get permission to use articles or information everytime you are posting news? It would take too much time and theortically make a story mute in point in not getting a readily swift response from authors. In a sense you are asking us to get permission from authors to read their stuff. They want us to read their stuff, and if we use their work, and give them the credit for such information no ethical violations are recognizable. They get more exposure and they are happy about that.
Many times I like to give my news on the news. It's like we are reporting our views of the News from the MSM outlets. I call it News&Opinion...and find that it suffices my right to self expression of news that comes to me and how or what I think about it.
We all have the opportunity to write stories and write opinions without some head moderator also butting in telling us how to think or how to talk about issues. Especially when no bad words are used.
Before I came to NowPublic I was at another website who would review articles before being posted. They would tell you later if the article was accepted or not. If it was not, the writer could rewrite and resubmit. They also had a Diary Section, which was used for articles that were not accepted as articles. So rejected articles could become Diaries instead.
I had such an article rejected, and I wrote a different article and posted it as a Diary instead, because all Diary entries were not always rejected articles. And I did not want to put my rejected article in the Diary section, thinking I would rewrite it and resend as another article.
The editors became very angry at me, so much that they themselves posted information from my rejected article in their comments, trying to prove their allegations. I just could not believe they did that. Here they rejected my article yet used portions of it in their comments, and they found nothing wrong with that? I made a copy of the entire webpage with comments from the editors, and good thing I did, because the next day when I checked they removed the entire Diary and their comments. But I had a copy, and asked them to please repost the diary because I have a copy of the page. And the only reason they deleted was to cover-up their blatant unethical behavior by posting stuff from my article they said they rejected to publish.
So this editor manipulation can be quite a harrangle, and really a waste of time. My contention is let the readers decide, and keep the web monitors out.
I have a new lease on life after finding NowPublic, because I can post without getting permission, and the wrangling over spelling and the whole gammet of BS these guys were doing just to massage their egos because they were editors. I found the editors made more spelling mistakes, and misjudgements calls in a multitude of articles. Even their right to use foul langauge but nobody else is allowed the same priviledge, later calling it Salty Language, that is not that bad, really disturbed me.
As far as getting paid that is an issue I think is very hard to do since we have volunteer writers here basically. It is hoped that our views provide information and education to the public where they appreciate our viewpoints. I wish we could make money from our words and thinking, but in reality no one really wants to dole out the dollars to writers.
We pay for website service and can go anywhere in the web to get information. Lot's of websites get their income from advertising other sites. But that can be a nusiance. I would like to see writers get paid by acquiring stock in the NowPublic Corporation. The number of hits to their articles would determine how much stock they can acquire that could be traded in the stock exchange. In fact each writer could be a valid stock option in News&Opinion writing, which would be much better than this ranking system we have here.
I find the ranking system rather like a hyper index. I tell you what, it looks pretty cheap and cheesy to see 4-5 articles by the same author in the same day on the same page, just because he or she wants to get high rankings for contributing. Its as though content does not matter, or the idea of being reasonable in posting one article a day is being sufficient. Myself I feel happy to do an article week, because it gives me real time to search a story, and do a good job in editing and so forth. I am not a hyper writer, and I could really careless about the points and ranking system they have here.
Thanks for your time....Reporting from PR China..The International Institute of Nonviolence
Rev.Jermano
azzayindia
at 08:28 on June 25th, 2008
well put Jermano,
what we do not realise that at now public we are giving lease of life top small town writers new or old.
We all want to be heard and this by far the best forum for all kind of writers experienced or firat timers.
it is the passion which makes us right otherwise who would like to waste their money on cyber cafe or internet bills.
your stock option is great well I might settle for a gift in form of a pen.
Paschen is correct when she says threaten nobody has the right to threaten not even the editors. let us agree to disagree at now public
Barry Artiste
at 19:34 on June 29th, 2008
Yeah, I too make spelling mistakes and what a pain to go back and correct them, especially if you are stumped how to spell it in the first place, how I hate those red underlines of my spelt words. But Now Public have insta spelling, passing your mouse over a word and clicking most times gets you the proper spelling, all courtesy of Now Public word-smiths.
Christina 123
at 15:22 on July 20th, 2008
Hi Rev Jermano
I know you wrote this a while back, but I wanted to comment that yes, we have the dichotomy of trashy reporting vs. interfering moderators, and then we have to ask ourselves, what came first, sensationalist reporting, or the public thirst for this type of stuff?
Third question: is repeating a fatual, sparsely written news story the same as plagiarising an original piece of creative writing, i.e., imaginative, well-considered or well-researched article? I think not. If someone reports, "Man Bites Dog" do they have the copyright to it?
Christina 123
PEP
at 07:44 on June 25th, 2008
Paschen, I like this story. It's good stuff.
Rob Walker
at 09:06 on June 25th, 2008
As far as the copying/pasting and highlight goes...well I'd have no problem if no user ever used mainstream media or wire stories again, and they were all original.
Unfortunately, due to the nature of news and people's interests, that probably won't happen. What we will see is more and more original articles from people.
As far as journalism and ethics goes, well I'm sure it's different across the pond, but in North America it's pathetic at best, and serving corporate and government interests at worst.
At least at NowPublic, people are representing their own, personal agendas and are open about them, which is more honest than 90% of the news outlets out there.
Paschen
at 03:22 on June 26th, 2008
Thank you for your input Rob Walker,
I just have some questions though and would like your point of view on that.
Now I would agree with you on your statement as far as CNN goes and some other Media, however, are Media such as CBC and CGBC not doing a rather good job for the most part?
Should we not think about our impact in the long run and how we affect the freedom of expression and freedom of the press? If we are weakening the existing Media and their joint organisation, would we not also there for restrict our own freedom?
Further if we do not regulate our self nor police our self, would that not lead to someone else ending up Policing us to the point that we may lose more in the long run than gain by our present way of operating!
Freedom is a very fragile think and needs to be taken care of in order to be preserved, would you not agree!?
Further our freedom can only exist as long as the others freedom exist as well. If we take to much away we may end up losing even more our self! Why I razed the subject of Reuters and our use of it without giving back to it!
I would like to hear for you as well as others on this and hope that some positive actions of evolution or both may come out of all this!
Thank you for your input!