Last Updated: December 29, 2000
Printer-friendly version
Ask Dr. Ink
Easy budget cuts and the polluted Internet
The doctor weighs in on borrowing from the ’Net, telling
Wall Street analysts where to get off and talking things over before giving
a photo a controversial haircut
Dr. Ink offers advice, serious and humorous, to editors on a full
range of problems and issues, journalistic and managerial. Questions may
be real or hypothetical, and may be rephrased to protect personal or institutional
privacy. Send them to Ask Dr. Ink, ASNE, 11690B Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston,
VA 20191.
Dear Dr. Ink: Some journalists have been accused of plagiarism
for using material from the Internet in their columns without attribution.
Is this just sloppy reporting? Or is anonymous material from the
Internet fair game? How should it be sourced?
Answer: On this topic, I have consulted my brother, Dr. Link,
who is 13-years-old. He says that by now we all know that the Internet
is not an information superhighway. It’s a polluted ocean.
A recent Ohio State study suggests that readers find text on paper more
comprehensible and more credible than the same stuff read on the screen.
So when we use material from the Internet without checking and without
attributing it, we run the risk of taking garbage from the ocean and making
it look like treasure. As for plagiarism, Dr. Ink thinks that it’s
a pain, and that these are the times that try men’s souls.
Dear Dr. Ink: Our photo editors are really fussy about not cropping
or altering photographs. But we “crop” articles to shorten them and
edit them. If the changes do not alter the intent or the reality
of the photo, why not?
Answer: The brilliant (and handsome) Roy Peter Clark has argued
that there are two special prohibitions for journalists: Do not add.
And do not deceive. Cropping is permitted because it does not add to the
reality captured by the photographer. The key then is to make sure
the cropping does not deceive, that it does not leave out something important
that would change the meaning or context. If there is any doubt, the key
parties (page editor, designer, photo editor) should talk. What a concept.
Dear Dr. Ink: The recent newsprint spikes are wrecking our budget.
Everything is on the table to cut content and save money. Any advice on
where to start?
Answer: This one is easy. Cut the salaries of the top ten corporate
executives by ten percent. Distribute that money to the copy editors,
who will be left holding the bag when newsroom resources are reduced.
Then trim profit margin expectations from 41 percent to 37. Then
double your budget for training. Then write a letter to the Wall
Street analysts, tell them you’re investing in the long-term excellence
of the product, and if they don’t like it, they can stuff it.
Dear Dr. Ink: Should we be spending so much to cover the political
conventions if the networks aren’t giving them prime time and people are
watching less and less?
Answer: Dr. Ink thinks it’s your democratic duty to cover the
conventions as fully as your can afford. True, the conventions are
different than they used to be, highly scripted, carefully produced, little
drama. But who said the journalists need to follow the script?
How about a little imagination mixed with old-fashioned shoe-leather. Here’s
an idea for the next election cycle: create a convention team that reports
from your own community, rather than from where the convention is being
held. Why are many people not watching. What are they watching instead?
What do they care about? What is the source of their disconnect from
the formal political process?
Dear Dr. Ink: Is it anti-Semitic to refer to Senator Lieberman
as a “Jew” in a headline?
Answer: Oy vey, what a question. Dr. Ink was puzzled, at
first, by this question since he has never considered the word “Jew” to
be derogatory. But then Dr. Ink is a mensch. It turns out that
some people do use the word as an ethnic slur, but mostly as an adjective,
“that Jew Senator,” rather than as a noun. The First Amendment permits
the anti-Semite to act like a putz, but there’s no reason we have to let
him steal from us an old and honorable word.
Dear Dr. Ink: We have a culture clash with the cyberfolk working
on our Web site. These people speak a totally different language
and do not understand how newspapers work. Plus they have a superior
attitude that is really annoying. How can we convince them that wordsmiths
have a future, too?
Answer: Dr. Ink tried to consult with his little brother Dr. Link
on this one, but the little guy yelled: “Not now, Dude, I’m defragmenting
my hard drive!” So Dr. Ink is on his own. The Poynter-Stanford research
suggests that the Internet is a text-driven medium, that reading is by
no means obsolete. We’re in the process of discovering what old forms
of writing work online and what new forms need to be invented. It’s an
exciting time. Some of the cyperpunks and some of the old farts actually
want to learn each other’s ways of seeing the world. Their conversations
will lead us into the future.
