Columnist’s oversight leads to disregard of honest work

Column // Matt Rancourt, Contributing Writer

I am nothing if not original.

For whatever reason, my brain doesn’t seem to function on the same wavelength as everyone else’s.

I’ve come to terms with this fact. The questioning looks I receive from others whenever I do or say something do not come as a surprise anymore.

Like that look I get whenever I scratch my nose with my knuckles.

Or the one I got when I put hot sauce on ice cream in the dining hall, just so I could find out what hot and cold tasted like together. (I wouldn’t recommend that flavor combo to anyone else, by the way.)

And when it comes to my columns, I always try to be as unique as possible. Usually, I accomplish this by just writing down whatever nonsense pops into my head.

For example, Dane Cook is on Comedy Central right now. He’s overrated: lots of profanity and adult material, very little in the way of being actually funny. And, oh yeah, his movies were garbage.

See?

I had an opinion, so I wrote it down. Column writing is really a lot easier than you might think.

This is why I always take notice when someone finds a way to screw it up.

Today, that someone is nationally syndicated columnist Cal Thomas.

Now before I begin, let me preface this by saying that Thomas has been writing columns since before I was born. He is obviously very, very good at what he does – hence the “nationally syndicated columnist” title. But recently, a newspaper editor in Texas decided not to publish one of his columns, citing a problem with it.

The problem she cited was, well, failure to cite.

Apparently, a portion of Thomas’ column was rather similar to a story that ran in The New York Times eight days prior. According to the editor, Carroll Wilson of the Temple Daily Telegram, it was “essentially plagiarized.” Here are the sections in question, courtesy of Jim Romenesko and Poynter:

New York Times, Feb. 16
“The Environmental Protection Agency set the value of a life at $9.1 million last year in proposing tighter restrictions on air pollution. The agency used numbers as low as $6.8 million during the George W. Bush administration.

The Food and Drug Administration declared that life was worth $7.9 million last year, up from $5 million in 2008, in proposing warning labels on cigarette packages featuring images of cancer victims.

The Transportation Department has used values of around $6 million to justify recent decisions to impose regulations that the Bush administration had rejected as too expensive, like requiring stronger roofs on cars.”

Cal Thomas, Feb. 24
“The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set the value of a human life at $9.1 million. It reached this determination while proposing tighter restrictions on air pollution. During the Bush administration, EPA calculated our value at $6.8 million. Was the difference in price caused by inflation? The EPA didn’t say.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) arrived at its own figure for the value of an American life. It says each life is worth $7.9 million. That, too, is an increase from the $5 million value FDA had assigned each human American life in 2008. The agency calculated our value while proposing new and tougher warning labels on cigarettes that include pictures of cancer victims.

The Transportation Department — yes, Transportation — put our worth at $6 million while seeking to justify recent decisions to impose regulations the Bush administration had rejected as too costly, such as stronger roofs on cars.”

Yeah, there might be a few similarities there.

Tribune Media Services later released a statement, which said that Thomas “did not feel that a citation was necessary given that the passages largely contained government figures that are available elsewhere.” However, he later would acknowledge that “The New York Times story should have been cited as the source for a column conveying his own opinions on the issue.”

Personally, I think that if you’re using the same “government figures” as a preexisting story, then they had better not be presented in the exact same order and with very similar supporting details.

Regardless of whether it occurred in this instance, plagiarism is the one thing you absolutely cannot do as a columnist, journalist or writer.

While you are supposed to give an opinion, it has to belong to you. In other words, it has to be your own intellectual property.

If your employer wanted to know what Bob in Cleveland thinks about an issue, then they’d pay him to write the column and you’d be sitting at home eating Doritos.

Sure, occasionally what you write may be kind of similar to what someone else wrote – it’s called accidental plagiarism. But for the most part, plagiarism only occurs when the writer means for it to occur, especially in regard to column writing.

So my advice to aspiring columnists is to write whatever pops into your head. It’s fine to look to the work of others for topics to write about (which is what I did here — thanks again, Poynter), but when it comes time to actually write, everything you need is located in your own head.

I’m sure you will have your own beliefs, feelings and opinions on whatever it is you choose to write about.

Just don’t expect everyone else to agree with them.

One INC writer goes where pretty much everyone else has gone before

Column // Matt Rancourt, Contributing Writer

I am about to embark on a journey.

I’m not sure where it will take me. And I don’t know how long I’ll be gone.

OK, I lied. I know the answers to both of these questions: to a website and for about 15 minutes, respectively.

But hey, a little bit of suspense never hurt anybody. And now that I’ve got your attention, I can tell you some more about this journey of mine.

It is my maiden voyage into the strange new world of Twitter.

However, before I begin this magnificent undertaking, I think it would be a good idea to review some of the ground rules for using this new technology. After all, I don’t like to jump into anything without adequate consideration.

Aside from large buckets of chicken wings, that is.

Anyway, as the agenda from INC’s last meeting reminds me, it’s time for me to quit putting this off. (Seriously, am I the only journalism student who doesn’t have a Twitter account by now?)

So let’s talk about what Twitter should (and should not) be used for:

1. Sharing information with others
Say you’re hiking in the mountains one peaceful afternoon.

Suddenly, Big Foot drops down from a tree, does a short dance for you and runs away.

After recovering from the shock caused by the encounter, you have an overwhelming desire to   share what you’ve just seen.

Immediately upon returning home, you log onto your Twitter account and post the following message:

“OMFG!!!! SAW BIG FOOT TODAY IN MTNS!!!! HE’S REAL!!!!!”

Congratulations, you’ve just delivered breaking news via tweet.

Of course, no one is going to believe you because you damaged your own credibility by typing in all caps and using the acronym “OMFG.”

Also, it probably didn’t help that you claimed to have seen Big Foot.

Nevertheless, the concept is still valid.

Whenever you witness something newsworthy, Twitter is a great way to break the story.  Likewise, if you happen to find something online that you think others should know about, then you can issue a tweet with a link to the material.

Sharing is caring, after all.

However, it is possible to share too much. This brings me to my second point, regarding what you should not share on Twitter: your personal life.

I’m sorry, but society doesn’t care about that wart you need to get removed, or how drunk you were last night when you made out with your buddy’s dog.

And the more you post junk like that, the quicker your number of followers will shrink.

So either keep the tweets relevant or go back to annoying people on Facebook.

2. Gathering information from others
This one has more to do with the people you are following than those who are following you.

Who are you following on Twitter as of right now?

If the list includes mostly members of the media, community leaders, maybe some professors and a few friends who are occasionally good for a laugh or two, then you’re on the right track.

However, if you’re getting live updates from Lindsay Lohan in jail every time your phone lights up, you’re probably doing something wrong.

Let me put it this way: Twitter is perhaps one of the greatest tools for initial information gathering ever invented. As a journalist, you need to ask yourself who is tweeting things that would be most valuable to someone in your position.

Hint: It’s usually neither the athletes nor the celebrities. Well, unless you’re in the business of covering athletes or celebrities. ESPN, for example, thinks that anything appearing on LeBron James’ Twitter feed (dinner plans, crude jokes, plots for revenge against those mean people who booed him in Cleveland, etc.) is relevant to our daily lives. And I’d be willing to bet Entertainment Tonight feels the same way about Ashton Kutcher’s tweets.

Everyone else, on the other hand, would likely prefer to be following The New York Times’ feed when it announces that President Obama has done one or more of the following: ended the recession, paid off the national debt, captured Osama bin Laden, slowed global warming or fostered world peace.

Even if he never does any of this stuff, wouldn’t it still be cool to think you’d be among the first to know whether he did?

Anyway, the main idea is to make wise decisions when choosing who you will be reading tweets from in the future.

3. Shameless self-promotion
This last guideline directly ties to the two aforementioned tips.

It’s like a sequence of events: Potential follower likes one of your tweets, potential follower looks at your page to see who you follow and sees respectable individuals (in other words, you don’t maintain a Twitter account just to stalk famous people), and finally, potential follower becomes actual follower.

Why is this important?

Because the more people you have following you, the more of an opportunity you have to promote your “brand.”

As a journalist, you can use Twitter to provide links to some of the other work you’ve done. This allows others gain a better feel for your writing talents than 140 characters would allow.

Just finish a new blog entry? (Note to self: When done with Twitter, start a blog.)

Tweet it and  link to it.

Just write a story for The Post?

Tweet it and  link to it.

Just wrap up another column for INC?

Sit down in front of the computer with a bucket of chicken wings and sign up for Twitter.

Media outlets should avoid election bias

Column • Matt Rancourt

Do you want to know what I think?

Because you’re about to read my column, you probably do.

But would you feel the same way if this were supposed to be a hard news story?

If you had thought this was going to be a report about election results (or some other relevant topic) when you clicked on the link, then you would have probably been more than a little irritated to find yourself reading a commentary about political bias in the media.

After all, most readers don’t enjoy the feeling of being blatantly misled.

When it comes to the media, however, the deception isn’t always so obvious.

For example, if you happened to tune in to ABC’s Good Morning America on Friday, you probably saw its “Morning Mix” segment. On the surface, it may have appeared to be nothing more than a roundtable discussion about Tuesday’s election results.However, if you were listening closely to some of the things the panelists were saying, you probably realized rather quickly that it was far from a balanced exchange.

It was a liberal free-for-all.

First, someone made the assertion that “the party of no is going to be the party of uh-oh. ‘Cause they’re not going to get anything done” in reference to the Republican Party. Then, it was suggested that John Boehner spends more time in the tanning booth than he does on the job.

And, of course, they concluded with the obligatory shots at Sarah Palin’s intelligence.

Keep in mind, again, that this is a Good Morning America segment we’re talking about here. I’m sure there were a number of viewers expecting a fair, intelligent analysis of the election results. Instead, they got The Daily Show – minus Jon Stewart and all of the other entertainment value.

I hope the conservatives watching weren’t too disappointed with the biased coverage … hey, wait a minute. Fox News is still on the air, right?

Yeah, never mind, there weren’t any conservatives paying attention to ABC. They have their own network to watch – that famously “fair and balanced” one. Because, you know, Bill O’Reilly was never really a registered Republican. And Sean Hannity doesn’t really win every argument with Alan Colmes.

Those are just rumors – probably started by liberals.

Now, here’s this week’s question to ponder: “Who would be more likely to cheat at cards – Bill Clinton or Al Gore?”

That’s a tough one. I think the correct answer is “C – Both: because all liberals lie, cheat, steal, and kick puppies.”

And you know what the sad thing is? Not only is that an actual Fox poll question, I also probably just got it right.

So, add that to an ever-growing list of examples of conservative media bias on the part of Fox. Also, feel free to bring up the Good Morning America panel to anyone who tries to tell you that liberal media bias doesn’t pop up just as often.

The fact of the matter is that journalists have been allowing their personal opinions to influence their work for far too long. In addition, the media on a larger scale has trouble with providing unbiased news coverage because editors, producers and publishers often weed out content they find displeasing.

It’s time for everyone to step up and start doing their jobs correctly.

The public has a right to accurate, thorough news reporting. This means that every possible angle and each conflicting view needs to be covered reasonably well. If you want to have a panel discussion about the election results, don’t pick three Democrats for the panel. Keep one Democrat and add a Republican and an Independent.

As for Fox, I’ve already thought of a new, more relevant poll question for them: “How many times will Ralph Nader find his way onto the presidential ballot?”

Personally, I think my initial estimate of 25 might actually be a little low.

Anyway, the point is that bias should only exist in media outlets that readily admit to favoring a particular idea or viewpoint.

If Fox wants to become a conservative network, that’s fine. Just stop using the slogan “we report, you decide.” Because half the time, Fox has already decided, and it’s left to the audience to agree or disagree, rather than formulating their own opinions.

And that’s what this all boils down to.

As journalists, our job is to inform the public. That’s it.

We are not here to tell people how to think, how to feel or how to act. An informed public can do all of those things (and more) on its own.

Of course, if an informed public cares about what you think, then I guess there’s nothing wrong with writing a column or two.

But, hey, maybe I’m biased.

Journalists need not worry about blog takeovers

Column  •  Matt Rancourt

I’m one of those people who are not really big on books.

It starts with textbooks, of course, which are both mind-numbingly boring and obscenely expensive. Honestly, the next textbook that I enjoy reading will also be the first.

Then you have novels, which can occasionally grab my attention for a little while, but usually lack the entertainment value necessary to hold it for long.

I only enjoy non-fiction books if they cover an interesting subject, and nobody reads reference books unless he or she needs to reference something.

So, yeah, books aren’t really my thing.

That being said, I am far from illiterate. I just prefer to read from a different type of medium, namely one that provides news.

Fortunately, there is no shortage of options to choose from in this regard.

For starters, since I am majoring in journalism, I am somewhat obligated to read my fair share of newspapers and a magazine or three. And let me tell you, I find it very difficult to start my day if I haven’t had the chance to sit down and peruse the morning paper.

But in spite of that, the bulk of my reading material comes from the Internet.

This shouldn’t be too much of a surprise, especially when you stop to consider the number of recent polls indicating more and more people now opt to go online for their news coverage. In fact, since you’re reading this column, that just so happens to be what you’re doing right now.

I have found, however, that while I am surfing the Net looking for news to read, I often find myself venturing somewhere entirely unexpected.

Into the blogosphere.

If you haven’t been there yet, then I suggest you visit. It’s not a very hard place to locate, and when you do, you’ll find a number of talented writers who are capable of providing both solid news reporting and insightful commentary.

Actually, in a number of cases, you will find that a blogger is good enough to pass for a professional journalist.

Naturally, this scares the heck out of many in our industry.

For example, a few days ago, I was reading an online editorial written by a science journalist. In it, she discusses her belief that bloggers are devaluing the field of journalism. She mentions how the presence of so many “citizen journalists” who are willing to work for free has led publishers to cut back on the number of paid reporters that they employ, which in turn lowers the quality of news coverage that readers receive.

Ironically enough, all of these concerns were posted on her blog.

So what she is also trying to say is that she thinks that it is only OK for journalists to have blogs. Apparently, nobody else is qualified enough to use them.

That view, in my humble opinion, is a bunch of (spit).

I have read work from quite a few bloggers demonstrating they would be just as effective in covering the news as the people my local paper actually pays to do the same job.

Trust me, there are plenty of qualified bloggers out there.

For publishers, it then becomes a matter of simple economics. Again, why pay someone to do a job when someone else could get the work done just equally well and for free?

So it looks as if there are going to be a whole lot of journalists filing for unemployment in the near future then, right?

Nope.

Not a chance.

You see, what a number of journalists (including the author of the aforementioned editorial) are forgetting in formulating these doomsday scenarios is that bloggers lack a few of the key components required to be successful in our field.

They may have writing talent, but they often lack reliable sources for their stories.

Do you think there are very many bloggers invited when President Barack Obama holds a press conference? Do you think he would ever grant a one-on-one interview to someone who writes solely for a blog?

Me neither.

Speaking of reliability, do you really think that readers can count on bloggers to provide it? If the U.S. captured Osama bin Laden tomorrow, do you really think the first place people would go to read about it would be a blog?

Me neither.

There are so many other things I could get into that bloggers lack – a dedication to ethics, professional training, etc. – but I think I’ve proven my point.

And that’s the reason I don’t put much stock in the whole “bloggers are devaluing the field of journalism” concern.

It’s because bloggers are not a part of the field of journalism. They may contribute on occasion, but it’s impossible for them to devalue a profession they don’t truly belong to.

As long as society desires news coverage, trained journalists will have jobs.

We shouldn’t look at bloggers as threats, but as potentially helpful allies (uncovering leads and sources, providing story ideas, etc.).

These people can’t take our jobs.

If they truly wanted to do so, they would probably be enrolled in a journalism school too right now.

Of course, then they’d have to buy books.

Facebook: The pros and cons of a guilty pleasure

Story • Matt Rancourt

The past couple of weeks have stunk.

Do you like midterms?

Me neither, but I had two of them.

Enjoy projects? How about essays?

What a coincidence – I don’t either. So I wasn’t thrilled to have to do two of each.

Care for whining?

Yeah, I didn’t think so. Sorry about that.

Needless to say, spare time was rather difficult to come by. And when I did have some, guess what I did with it?

No, not study for that frighteningly long political science test.

Start on that literary analysis essay?

Please.

What I wound up doing was something far less productive.

I Facebook-ed.

That’s right. That accursed social networking site has claimed another victim.

I knew there were more important things to be doing, but for some reason I just could not focus on them until I had come up with another clever status update. Or changed my profile picture for the thousandth time. Or wondered about why a website would ever feel the need to include a “poke” function.

I was out of control. Facebook had given me a channel to utilize my latent procrastination talents. At one point, I thought about deactivating my account just so I could get something done.

But then I reconsidered.

After all, while Facebook may not always be the greatest thing for one’s GPA, it does offer a number of potential benefits to an aspiring journalist.

The following is a very short, non-comprehensive list of Facebook pros and cons, given in no particular order, which I composed while I was supposed to be studying John Locke’s views on the state of nature.

Pro: Unsurprisingly, it’s fantastic for networking.

I know, I know. Duh, right? Who would have thought that a social networking site would be useful for social networking? Well, that’s just for the average person.

For a would-be journalist, the benefits are far greater than you might think.

Say you meet an Ohio University graduate at some sort of event. Now say that this person also happens to have a few connections in the field you hope to enter. Perhaps they work for a large magazine or a TV station.

Anyway, shortly after you meet, the person sends you a friend request on Facebook. Suddenly it becomes much easier to maintain your new contact. You can comment on a few of their status updates. You might also post a message or two on their wall, perhaps a “happy birthday” (Facebook does conveniently remember birthdays, after all). Basically, you do just enough to make sure this person doesn’t forget about you.

Then, after a month or so, your contact leaves a post on your wall saying that they have a job available at the magazine/TV station that they think you would be perfect for. You ace the interview, but they don’t offer you the position because…

Con: Potential employers can see everything that you (or someone else) may have ill-advisedly posted on Facebook.

…they take a look at some of the pictures you have on your profile page. You know, those ones your friend tagged of you passed out on the bathroom floor cuddling with a tequila bottle.

And instantly, you’re no longer “what the company is looking for.”

Oh well, better luck next time.

Pro: It provides a great forum for you to show off your work.

Visibility is important to a journalist.

With Facebook, you can provide links to just about anything you have ever done. It could be an article in an online publication, or a blog post you’re particularly proud of, or footage from one of your televised interviews, or even just a really good photo that you took. It could be just about anything, really.

As soon as you start posting things, they’re going to start popping up in others’ news feeds.

And who knows? Your Facebook friends might be so impressed by your work that they become regular readers/viewers.

Maybe one of them even mentions you to someone they know in the industry, and you suddenly find yourself in the running for a job. Stranger things have happened.

Just make sure you’re untagged in any and all pictures involving tequila bottles before your first interview.

Con: A Facebook account does not double as a Twitter account.

I actually don’t have a Twitter feed, because I find it rather similar to the Facebook status update function – it just seems kind of redundant.

However, as we learn very early on in Scripps (and can see within the industry), journalists nowadays are generally expected to use both sites.

So apparently, if I want to increase my chances of being successful, I’m going to have to start “tweeting” just like everyone else.

And then I’ll have just what I need – a new way to procrastinate.

Great.

If anyone wants to follow me on Twitter, I think I’m going to start by providing live updates as my GPA sinks.