« Larry Craig, Flip-Flopper | Main | Cavettation? Cavett Nation? »

October 05, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345190b469e200e5507511c18834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Chemical Attack In London:

Comments

Shirley

The other shoe is now dropping. This is about money. Evidently Jim inndtes to sell ads for his new web site. Given his popularity, this poses a big threat to the Poynter web site. Nothing else makes any sense. He is not only a pioneer as an aggregator but he effectively set the standard. To suggest the standard is now plagiarism is utter nonsense and demeans the work of a solid experienced newsman. Erika Fry, the assistant editor of the Columbia Journalism Review and 2011 graduate of the university, apparently did not have the difference between aggregator and plagiarism explained properly in class. I appreciate that young journalists may see this issue in terms of black and white given the recent disgraceful episodes of serious plagiarism in journalism. But there are distinctions as anyone who worked in a real newsroom knows and what Jim Romenesko did so well as a sharp and speedy chronicler of the media world is not even close to plagiarism. If Poynter had a problem with his style, it had 12 years to tell him. To do this so publically at this juncture is an obvious ploy to discredit him and eliminate a rival for advertising dollars.

The comments to this entry are closed.