Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Strib seeks credit where credit is due

The Strib, it seems, is outing folks all over town. But it has nothing to do with bedroom behavior. “Outing” is an official Associated Press term. The AP is a co-op; member news organizations share copy which AP rewrites and other members use. But in rare cases, a news organization can forbid other members — out them — from using those rewritten stories. In this case, the Strib has outed every TV, radio and online outlet within 30 miles of the Twin Cities.

The move will hit local TV stations where their growth opportunity is: the web. Once upon a time, newspapers didn’t care much that TV stations filled their broadcasts with the newspaper’s scoops. But everybody’s competing on the web; the Strib is a big net exporter of news content, and TV snaps up the AP version for its own home pages.

The outing, which began Monday, could reduce the volume of news — and unique visitors — rolling through,,, with drive-by effects for “That’s a big one,” said one affected web guru not authorized to comment publicly. “We’ve been dealing with it all week.”

The Strib’s move is part of a slowly building trend; publishers in Seattle, Tucson and the Quad Cities have outed local broadcast competitors. But Star Tribune managing editor Rene Sanchez paints his paper’s move as a matter of honor more than business. When the AP writes a story, it’s supposed to credit the originating organization if there’s substantial original reporting. However, members on the receiving end can edit AP copy as they see fit. Too often, Sanchez says, Strib reporters would see their stories on a TV site stripped of any credit to the newspaper.

Final straw
Recalls Sanchez, “In December, we had two investigative reporters spend two months working on what became a three-part series about MnDOT balancing money and safety. The second part is a front-page story about Highway 14 as a case study. The story hits Monday morning, and that afternoon, we see a TV website where the story is absolutely showcased – ‘Is this the most dangerous highway in Minnesota?’ I’m sure thousands of people clicked on that website to read a very abridged version of what Paul McEnroe and Tony Kennedy had written – with absolutely no reference to us!”

The final straw may have come two weeks ago. The Strib’s Pam Louwagie found a construction worker who had been knocked off the I-35W bridge, only to return to work on the same bridge months later. The day the story ran, TV sites republished it, sans Star Tribune credit. While not disavowing the publisher-pleasing aspects of online exclusivity, Sanchez says, “this step is rooted, in part, in the staff’s dismay about what’s happening to their enterprise work.”

Sanchez could not conclusively ID the offending TV stations in the Highway 14 case; AP did not include credit on the bridge worker rewrite, but issued a correction later. WCCO news director Scott Libin said the paper never made him aware of any problems until he received the letter Friday announcing Monday’s outing. “We would, in fact, like to know if we’re guilty,” he says.

Whoever’s at fault, I stand with the Strib on this. Whatever the paper’s business troubles or foibles, there are a lot of reporters and editors working damn hard to unearth original facts; they deserve copious credit. McEnroe and Kennedy made the Highway 14 story one that everyone wanted; even though Louwagie’s was a one-source story, she found the source no one else did.

Let’s face it — we live in an era where giving credit is easy. (Within reason.) Space isn’t a problem on the web, so TV site editors shouldn’t take out “reports the Star Tribune” or the credit line AP usually appends at the end. In fact, as a matter of principle, they or AP should take five seconds and hotlink those credits to the specific Strib story. Here, link-happy bloggers often act more professional than the professionals.

Case study
There’s another really delicious aspect to this, as anyone who’s competed against the Strib knows. Many an alt-weekly journalist or online scribe has a tale about the Strib “borrowing” original facts or analysis without credit. There was an interesting case study a few months ago involving Ed Kohler of and an embarrassing Target ad.

Sanchez insists the paper has strict standards about credit, and he’s standup enough to say anyone who feels burned in the future should contact him. (It’s or 673-1731.)

Having spent most of my career as a “little guy,” it’s worth adding that we are not without sin. And to avoid the hypocrisy police, I should note that I first learned of the Strib’s move from Bob Collins at NewsCut.

Sanchez says TV stations can avoid the Strib police the same way I’ve advanced Collins’ nugget: add original reporting. “We don’t care if they read something in our paper and go out and grab their own facts and don’t credit us,” Sanchez says. Strib reporters, after all, have a TV on in their newsroom and often scramble after seeing something on the telly. “But until we get our own information, we will credit them if something runs on our site,” he insists.

I have the sense that this may turn out to be a short-term problem. One industry vet notes that the Strib’s victory may be pyrrhic, because TV sites might start playing up Pioneer Press stories on their well-trafficked sites. (That, too, might be a double-edged sword, since the web competition is much tighter between the PiPress’s and the TV sites.)

For his part, the Strib’s Sanchez says “conversations” with the TV stations “have just begun, though there’s no idea where this is leading us or what might emerge.”

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (4)

  1. Submitted by John Olson on 02/28/2008 - 05:29 pm.

    I’m not a huge Strib fan, but I also agree with their stance on this.

    Now I remember why I don’t read a TV stations website!

  2. Submitted by Jackie Crosby on 03/03/2008 - 07:22 pm.

    As the star player in the “interesting case study” mentioned, let me try to set the record straight. Sitting on the sidelines seems only to have given credence to the insipid chattering.

    Why on earth does Ed Kohler of think he deserves credit? He learned about the incident from another blogger, Andy Sernovitz, whom Koehler told me he didn’t know. Sernovitz didn’t have first-hand knowledge, either. He linked to an online posting from the University of Georgia professor. The professor got the story from one her students, the true source of the story – and the person credited for it.

    If linking to other people’s blogs and posting excerpts from Web sites is considered original reporting worthy of attribution, then we really are in trouble.

    Kohler didn’t talk to the student to verify that she even existed or to see whether she stood behind her posted comments. Koehler didn’t talk to the host of the Target Rounders site to see if the student’s allegations matched up with actions they took. Kohler didn’t talk to Target officials.

    After speaking with him, it was clear Kohler was too thin of a source to base a responsible story on. I sat on the story for a day until I could connect with all the parties involved. That’s what journalists do.

    While I appreciate the Monday morning quarterbacking that goes on about stories in the evil mainstream media, and the knit-picking of phrases and the woulda, coulda and shoulda’s … taking me to woodshed for supposedly not properly sourcing this story is ridiculous.

    Given the hierarchy of sources, the space given and the time I had to write the story (about an hour and a half), Kohler deservedly wasn’t in the top tier.

    It may be fine and dandy for bloggers to sit on their computers and make comments and link to other blogs and Web sites and get people talking. It’s quite another thing to publish this information in the newspaper.

  3. Submitted by curt brown on 03/04/2008 - 12:11 pm.

    Talk about your apples and oranges. The Star Tribune is tired of seeing its work splashed on the websites of its legitimate cyber competitors when they don’t do a stitch of their own work. Jackie Crosby reported and wrote her own Target story. If we need to cite every obscure blog who might mention something we’re reporting, why not attribute news tips garnered from urinal eavesdropping and credit every flak-prompted story to some public relations firm?

  4. Submitted by David Brauer on 03/05/2008 - 12:46 pm.

    Like Jackie, it’s probably best I not sit on the sidelines in this discussion.

    As someone who has advocated a state ban on the word “interesting” because Minnesotans so often use it to hide what they think, it’s humbling to trip over my own tripwire.

    The point I was trying to make by raising the Deets case is only that the Strib’s push for appropriate credit will heighten watchfulness about the paper crediting others. There is no doubt Jackie did her own reporting, so her case is significantly different than the outlets the Strib is complaining about.

    But it’s not exactly apples to oranges, in my view. I don’t think it’s fair to compare this case to urinal eavesdropping. There doesn’t seem to be any disagreement that Jackie called Ed and got his help. I agree that space and coherency don’t argue for crediting every source, and there is a hierarchy – which it sounds like Ed was on (if, as he claims, Jackie mentioned credit) only to fall off for what sound like legitimate reasons.

    But to me, there’s a legit discussion about where the lines get drawn, which I guess we’re now having.

    By the way, I’m all in favor of clearly labeling stories pitched by flaks.

Leave a Reply