It isn't either/or. Some people add original content while citing and/or linking properly, while other people just cut and paste. As far as OS in particular, the blessing and curse of it is that because the posters (with a few exceptions) are mostly unconnected in the wide world and so it tends to be more of a BBS writ large rather than a producer of original reportage.

I suspect we're a little of both. You make a good point about guidelines. I believe there should be an official online "handbook" for bloggers. Fortunately, some experienced bloggers (like Cartouche) have done us a service by providing "unofficial" guidelines.

I don't think we should thinking we're up to something illegal, or even "that we're up to something," when we expand on someone else's work. Somebody puts something out there, we digest, and expand on it. Way to a right and good conversation--build upon, don't leave alone! My mind is way too much on fair usage, something I too am uncertain about. And when I google it, it's full of, "you know, this is always an uncertain thing. You're likely okay if . . . "

This said. Not just good form, but appropriate appreciation is shown in making it very clear you're quoting/borrowing from someone else.

This is a topic that is useful to bring up. I don't want to unncessarily limit what I put up, nor, in my innocence, to over-step "the limits."

If you quote virtually the whole story from a traditional news medium, that could be a problem even with attribution. Using a paraphrase of the article to set the stage for the point of your post, something I've done several times, isn't a problem because your not merely redistributing the story. Whether or not your added opinion or twist on the original makes it "better" is a matter of opinion, of course.

I think the real problem is bloggers who think their mere opinions make them journalists. There seems to be a lot of confusion on that in the blogosphere. At best, they're synthesizers of facts already reported, kinda like most of the talking heads on the political networks.

I think there's nothing wrong with linking to or quoting an existing article if you're going to comment on it, either in agreement or as a rebuttal with a differing opinion. That's what the marketplace of ideas is all about. If you copy and past a whole article and put that on your blog, well, that's a different story and totally wrong. But a link draws traffic to the content you're talking about. And legal precedent allows for quoting other people's content if you're going to comment on it, particularly in scholarly work, reviews, or journalism.

do we have to choose?

you raise an important issue, silk, whenever I see a post that's little more than a cut-and-paste of someone else's content, my thought is why dodin't they just provide a link?

If the words and opinions are your own, then you have a right to express them. If you have to quote more than 20% of the original article to write your own, then I would say it's more like theft. Not citing the original work is definitely theft.

if you consider the most interesting act of life is thought : then what the 'pickers up' do is complementing.

if the most important part of life is hunger, then, the original writer, that plodded and worked to appease something, somebody, through that piece will be disappointed rightly for not getting what he/she thought of as their due

If decency and fairplay be an important consideration, giving other people due respect even while you build on the bricks laid by them, is in order

there cannot be one right or wrong, straight answer to this - except decency at all times . but then we rape, wage wars, lust, hit - are we huanimals decent?

rtd

Blogging is all about feedback and content distribution by its very nature. Anyone who doesn't understand that we are operating a sorting system for information in a cooperative fashion has no concept of community.
Which doesn't mean there is no concept of manners. Plagiarism and lack of attribution can actually run up against laws regarding such things even online. Because misbehaviour can affect our webhosts, ISPs and so on, the idiots get 'sorted' fairly quickly : it's just that most don't follow forums which review blogging behaviour...a much more immediate concern.
Here's a note from my 'Law' section at http://my.opera.com/oldephartte/links/
http://www.avivadirectory.com/blogger-law/

it's the nature of the web to recycle and respin -- it's not just bloggers doing the rewrites, but all news aggregation sites, and tweets too. it's something heavily debated. On the one hand, if the links and sites are sourced, it could drive traffic to the original, always a plus. On the other, people rarely click back. in the end, it's the spin -- the analysis, the voice, the personality -- that keeps people coming back. Anyone can rehash what's already been said. But how many people can do it like Jon Stewart?

Thanks for raising this here. Being schooled in the ways of academic research and publishing, I am always appalled at the blatant copying and pasting (i.e., plagiarism) that goes on here and throughout the blogosphere and is presented as original. For godssake, cite the source, or link it at the very least. Now the fact that someone tells your joke better; well, at least they're telling your joke (and should credit you, but that's it.)

On the internet anyone and everyone is an instant authority and writer. Used to be you had to at least buy a newspaper or something, and that took some effort - unlike blogging. This is more like a visual telephone than any other type of medium, and so it's often "yak, yak, yak....about nothing."

Connie Schultz, a Pulitzer-prize-winning columnist from Ohio's major newspaper (the Cleveland Plain Dealer), has come up with a solution of sorts to protect a newspaper's rights to its original story, at least initially. She proposes a 24-hour copyright on original material. My son thinks tightening copyright law is a bad idea, and I agree with him, but you didn't ask so much what we think should be done as much as whether we think we're stealing. I guess I don't think I am, but that's because I don't really tend to write about popular or current events, something I've learned makes me a bit, ahem, less well read than others (not that kind of well read). And now I'm laughing with irony at myself because of course the post I just linked to is in fact a personal twist on a recent news story. Sheesh. (Here's another funny: The other day Stellaa poked people who write personal narratives and I responded as though I don't write personal narratives, which I later, as I was sweeping my kitchen floor, realized was practically all I write. So apparently I don't even know what I write.) Gosh, silkstone, sorry for being so chatty; I promise I'm not drunk. My answer is that the next several years we're going to see a weird hybrid where all the bloggers and journalists and analysts are all mixed up on the web, and some kind of truth will emerge. I actually think the democratic nature of the internet will out any untruths very quickly, which will compensate for all the upfront legwork that newspapers are currently doing to support their stories. When that disappears, as it will when the newspapers are gone completely, which I think will happen faster than most of us can imagine, then bloggers will take up the slack immediately, as many are already doing. I think the biggest problem of all is figuring out a way to monetize the journalism that is and will be going on in the blogosphere.

I think I said way too much but yet not enough. That kind of a night. Oh god, it's morning. That explains it.

Nice post by the way :)

The more things change the more toes will be stepped on. Traditional publishers are crying foul about the print on demand industry but they've backed themselves into a corner by being somewhat elitist.

Copying and pasting an entire article for your own gain is shoddy at best. But news is meant to be commented on. As bloggers, we do get the freedom to "report" the way we see it. This is perhaps the biggest issue.

You seem to be lumping all bloggers together when there's clearly different tiers. Only way I get tens of thousands of hits is with a massive collection of pics of women in thongs. Had I posted Hamilton Nolan's post verbatim I'd get 9 ratings and it would be dead in 18 hours (which I've read is the life expectancy of most posts here).

So while this may an issue for those who blog for a living or have high profiles, for the vast majority it's basically taking what you hear around the water cooler and putting it down on paper, and calling that stealing is disingenuous .

But in the end, he would have been happier not to have been "ripped off" and be unread than to have been ripped off and be read?

If you don't say the story is your own or you credit the source then, no. You are not stealing. Intentional plagiarism is pretty clear cut that way.

If you say it's your story and it's not, then, yes, it's stealing. It's not that new. Just ask any of my composition classes. They plagiarize all the damn time.

Interesting comment and questions. I think there's a relevant point that was missed in your article however ... there is an unethical component to what happened to Shapira. What happened in this case is a blogger picked up a SINGLE MSM story, and used that SINGLE source as the basis for an entire piece. In other words, Nolan really DID just repackage the original story. That is clearly unethical, and clearly a theft of Shapira's intellectual property, it seems to me.

What bloggers USUALLY do (and what Glenn Greenwald, as one example, does exceptionally well) is take a variety of reporting on a single subject, and condense it into a more cohesive whole. They take stories from a variety of sources, and point out the common threads, and the disparate elements. They don't repackage a singular piece of MSM journalism ... they condense a wide range of MSM work into a single cohesive whole.

I think what we do as bloggers is little different from what opinion and commentary writers in newspapers do, and we should follow similar rules. An editorialist isn't allowed to do what Nolan did ... they are usually forced to include at least a few sources in their piece. Likewise, bloggers who lift a single piece (especially one that might represent a "scoop") and use that as the basis for their own opinion are committing a violation of ethics IMO.

One other thing missing from this discussion is how the media, in effect, plagiarizes by posting, verbatim, news releases. As someone who has written press releases, i know that part of my job is to give a lazy reporter something that s/he can just paste into a story as if s/he had actually interviewed anyone. Thus, news releases contain quotations, facts, etc., that are often dumped right into a news source with NO FACT CHECKING. Thus, you get propaganda being read directly onto the air.
So, while I think the whole question of blogging/reporting plagiarism is important, and you're all doing a great job thinking about it, I think journalism needs to clean up its own house and stop relying on "press releases" instead of going after a story themselves.

The Internet is like a guest getting to a long, boring dinner party just in time for dessert, and then totally changing and dominating the conversation. The other dinner party guests – print and broadcast folks – are peeved at the Internet’s late arrival and frustrated by their own failed attempts to get a word in edgewise.

So, sure, it’s natural that there is frustration on the part of the old media with the blogosphere, and it’s only to be expected that there will be tension as everyone jockeys for position and feels out where the boundaries lie. In the end, though, the basic rules of news stories should apply, which includes giving credit where credit is due and not passing someone else’s work off as your own.

In a way, pieces picked up on the web are kind of like stories written by reporters being picked up by the Associated Press for use by member newspapers. There are, however, two big differences between the AP model and the Internet. The first is that with the AP, the bylines and photo credits remain with the person who generated the content or image. The second is that the AP is a cooperative venture and everyone makes a bit of money with the same content. It’s not that way on the web.

In order for journalism to flourish on the web, someone, somewhere is going to have to figure out how everyone will make money from it.

When I refer to another's work or quote it - I think of it as akin to when I did my thesis in grad school - I'm using it as reference material to support my hypothesis - and I tell ya where I got it. If I'm gonna steal it, I ain't gonna tell ya where I got it... you're supposed to think I'm clever from the onset :)

In the end, though, the basic rules of news stories should apply, which includes giving credit where credit is due and not passing someone else’s work off as your own. . . . In order for journalism to flourish on the web, someone, somewhere is going to have to figure out how everyone will make money from it. (Maria Stuart, see above). Now was that so hard?

Put quote marks around or consider my previous excerpt a block quote from Ms. Stuart. Great post, btw.

Interesting perspective and question. I use news articles and sources too, typically as a "jumping off point" for commentary within a post. There have been a couple of times when I have all but "lifted" an article of a breaking news story and surprisingly, the editors here have on a couple of occasions slapped these up on the cover (a bit to my surprise if not dismay).
But, generally speaking I think we need to use the same basic guidelines that were hammered at us in high school composition, in college writing and by instructors/professors assigning term papers concerning plagerism. If you quote it; attribute it! Put it in quotes! Then launch on comment, satire, derision, mockery, opinion or whatever else you'd like.
Rated

Wow, I posted this last nite and really didn't know if I'd get many reads, so am gratified to see so many very thoughtful comments. They're so juicy that I wish I could respond to everything, but probably can't. I'll with a general response to your comments:

I deliberately left my own POV out of the above post because I wanted others to weigh in first. And basically, almost everyone has said what I feel: that there is plagiarism or near-plagiarism, and then there is using a news story as a jumping off point for one's own ideas or opinions, and those are 2 very different things. I make that distinction as well, and try to do only the latter, which seems to be both fair game and useful/interesting, while the former is questionable.

That said, I did appreciate the comparison to AP. People quoted on this matter in NYT blog I linked also made the point that sites like The Daily Beast or HuffPo are the new AP, in that they aggregate and highlight stories for readers who are drowning in a sea of content (both professional and "amateur"). Journalists are of mixed feelings about that -- as in this case, when Shapira was at first thrilled to be "picked up" by Gawker vs. his piece quickly being buried as just a WashPo item. I liked the comment (in NYT blog) by someone that his ambivalence nicely symbolizes the mixed feelings about this new way of doing things. That's probably why this incident has gotten some play.

I also agree with those here who said this is the new normal and everyone in journalism should adjust to it. I think many are, which is why newspapers have so many blogs and other online-only features, and use Twitter, etc.

But there is a bottom line, which is that if there is no longer money to support paid professional journalism, where will all that content go? And let's face it, folks, pro journalists at good newspapers and mags etc do work that none of us do, using standards that none of us fully (or often even partially) adhere to. If we lose good journalism, we've really lost something.

The fact that there is much shoddy paid journalism, or as Lorraine rightly points out, passing on of press releases with no fact-checking, does not erase the fact that there are still great reporters out there doing critical work that is in most people's opinion essential to a democracy and an informed public. Yes, there are citizen journalists, and they can often play a valuable role, but it's not the same.

My own hope is that the "old" media and that level of professional working in it can survive, and that we can co-exist in this new paradigm. I think it's all in the process of being sorted out, and it's hard to say what's going to happen. In the process, we're going to lose -- hell, we've already lost -- some excellent publications and writers. But there is no change without some carnage.

I'll respond to some specific points you all made in next Comment.

What bloggers USUALLY do (and what Glenn Greenwald, as one example, does exceptionally well) is take a variety of reporting on a single subject, and condense it into a more cohesive whole.

I'll also second Lyle's observation. This is what good bloggers do. And for that matter, it's what good print journalists do, too, and I think it used to be called "analysis". We don't see nearly enough of that these days. When I do a serious news-related blog post (not that I do that very often, or very well), this is what I'm shooting for. Of course, it's also possible to think of the result as just another random person's opinion, but a good deal of work and thought can go into it.

(By the way, Silkstone, I liked this post a lot, even though it's not about sex. :-)

Another general comment, as so many people raised it: Yes, if you simply remember the rules for writing term papers in high school or college, you probably will be OK! But as Odette pointed out, even many current students are shaky on that concept, much less those who have been out of school a long time, or perhaps didn't have very rigorous academic prep.

I have a friend who teaches community college English and every year she gives a handout explaining what plagiarism is, how they should handle research in their papers, etc. And every year, there are quite a few students who break the rules -- some thinking they can get away with it, but what's more disturbing, there are an increasing number who literally don't understand the difference between using research to create your own content vs. plagiarizing. They honestly don't get it, including how you transform information you gather into original thinking.

And I think that's in part a generational difference that is only growing. When you grow up downloading music and video for free and getting most written content for free online, and forwarding everything on email without necessarily verifying or quoting the true source, it all starts to get a bit blurry, doncha think??

Steve, I think that the work various OSers have done to make up unofficial guidelines here is great. I'm just rather shocked that there are no official ones, especially on this issue. I've certainly seen them on other online sites (e.g., a "quote no more than 2 paragraphs even with attribution" rule) because there are legal repercussions for the site itself. I would think Salon would want to protect itself.

James, I completely agree with this: "I think the real problem is bloggers who think their mere opinions make them journalists. There seems to be a lot of confusion on that in the blogosphere." Yup!!

Marcelle, your 20% rule is a nice one. It's hard to pin this kind of thing down to quantifiable, measurable standards, and yet it seems that's what some folks need, since a qualitative standard is more elusive and subjective.

John, thanks so much for the legal links! I'm going to look at those when I have a bit more time later. I think I read that a blogger was just sued for something like this, but also that she won her case.

Cindy, no one does it like Jon Stewart!

Grif, having spent a fair bit of time in academia, I have a similar reaction as you do to the carelessness I often see around this issue. I notice other people with an academic background commented similarly here. It seems so obvious from that perspective -- what's intriguing is that it's not at all obvious to many others.

Lainey, your comments made me laugh several times! Whatever was going on, it made you hilarious. As you can tell from the long comment I just posted above, I agree with you about the sorting process and loss that is occurring. The 24 hour rule sounds very sensible, but realistically it will never happen. Even the "old media" don't abide by exclusivity any more, but steal each other's stories if they can. It's almost impossible for anything to be truly "exclusive" for more than a nanosecond these days.

GJI Penguin, you make a good point that there is some possible culpability in how traditional media has operated (esp book publishing, per your example). Same thing with record co's and downloading. But does the punishment exceed the crime?? I guess we'll see....

Harry, I would never lump all bloggers together. For one thing, it would make a huge gooey unsightly mess. But mostly because you're right - there is an enormous range in blogs, just as there is even in professional journalism. For purposes of this discussion, I'm going high level and general, as did the source I am riffing from.

Neil, ha!

Lyle, I agree with Stellaa - you make some really good points. And I think your dissection of what Nolan did and why it's different is right. I strongly disagree, though, that using only one source for an opinion piece is a violation of ethics. I think anything goes in opinion pieces as long as you make it clear what you're doing. So you don't pretend to have more facts than you do, you give attribution/links for the facts you quote, etc. I see nothing wrong with writing an opinion piece based on a single source of information, whether it's a news story or a fact you read in a government report, as long as it's clear that's what you're doing. I think many good writers can riff and expound on a single fact or idea, and that opinion pieces by their nature are meant to be understood as that writer's opinion unless they are stating things as being facts. Perhaps the issue is more that much of the public has trouble distinguishing between opinion and reporting -- which would explain the faith many have in Fox News.

FLW/Lorraine, as mentioned in other comment, agree with you about press releases and other ways in which journalists need to "clean up their act". There's room all round for improvement.

Maria, as noted in other comment, I liked both your AP analogy and your dinner party one! well said.

We are human beings discussing issues. Without blogging, I'd be sitting around the lunchroom at work or the pub in the evening, discussing these things and referencing the articles. And adding my own 2 cents!

Rob, ha!! If you guys want me to write about more than sex, you gotta encourage me, so thanks for that.

I also like your identification of "analysis," as separate from both opinion and straight reporting. I also highly value analysis, which I think is often an unsung aspect of journalism despite being one of the most valuable when done well. I really appreciate having someone present me with a variety of viewpoints, fairly represented, on a given issue.

There are many things both journalists and bloggers can do, and they all have value, but the terms of a piece are not always adequately distinguished by the writer (especially by bloggers, but also MSM etc - see my potshot at Fox News). Smart readers can figure it out on their own, but not all readers are as smart as we are on OS!

"limiting what you quote directly, attributing it to the source, and making sure you add to the material in some way to change it and make it your own"

That would be my approach, too. That seems to be the standard the old media is operating by, after all, so I don't think they can complain if we adopt it. While copy/pasting an entire story is something I avoid, I think the excerpts I use are warranted as long as I add commentary or put them in a new context. And I always link to my sources, so hopefully my use of their reporting will send some traffic their way which they would otherwise have missed.

In a 24 hour news environment--especially when most of the real news is being repressed (hear Glenn Greenwald's account of his interview with NBC's Chuck Todd is spot on) and we are living off of photo opps--there is simply just not enough meaningful content left for broadcast TV and traditional print media. (Glenn Greenwald's account of his interview with NBC's Chuck Todd is spot on). I have seen CNN anchors just sit and read twitters, text messages and emails right on the air as if they are news. No TIME for fact checking, no NEED for fact checking. Facts are comprised of press releases from PR agencies and are often reprinted/reported verbatim. The New York Times actually asks readers to submit photos for publication. At least they are credited, but I believe they are unpaid. The NYTimes can no longer afford to pay photographers? Times are tough. Local new shows have low budgets and you will often hear "If any of our viewers were near the disaster (pick one) please send us any photos or video might have and we'll put them on the air." Why send out a van with a videographer and a reporter when a neighbor can just send them a picture from her iPhone?
My point here is that journalism is dead as we knew it. People worry about the demise of print media, but what is lost is the veracity of the press. No longer able to afford costly news bureaus abroad, they have to cannibalize each other. There's still Reuters and other news service folks who hire stringers to report from Iraq and Afghanistan and other dangerous ground. In the US we are still arguing about what is torture and all of the debating doesn't allow us to go forward, tell it like it is and ban it. TV news is now busy, focusing instead on personal inter-network news wars. (Olberman and O'Reilly--please put a sock in it! Dudes, you're acting ridiculous...) When you find "reputable news" broadcast reading text messages on the air as if it is really news, everything is fair game. The web steals from the press, the press steals from bloggers. Copyright laws can really no longer protect content. The web has opened up a Cassandra's Box full of people who write about what's happening, and sometimes it does improve the news.
As for Shapira, you got your 15 minutes and started an important discussion. For all of you blogging away out there, do so with integrity and credit your sources. They probably rec'd their info from--who knows where? That's adaptation, not stealing

Just because bloggers use MSJ as a source doesn't make them theives. Likewise I notice that there are more than a few of the mainstream types both reading and posting on public blog sites like our own. Today a piece posted by David Sirota came vry close to a post of mine here. I don't know if he read it or if that it influenced him or inspired him. We both sourced public records to verify our facts and quite possibly from the same sources. This doesn't mean that I was used or he stole my work. It only means that we saw a story on a similar subject and wrote it. That aspects were similar is a co-incidence and nothing more. With literally thousands of us writing and posting stories of many natures the possibility that some will look like they were lifted from the other is bound to happen with greater frequency. The publishers complaint is that in the past, they had sole access to information and sole access to publication. Blogging has fundamentally changed the way that stories come to light. It doesn't make us theives.

I'm with you on the fair use guidelines. I use 'em as I know 'em. And yes, in general, I cite, without turning this into a class project. My own impetus is to dig deeper, to add reportage or synthesis of material that is already in the public domain, say, a new report or poll, or even my own interview.

Having said that, I think that it is fine to play the analysis or opinion role. As I've said before, that's exactly what the OpEd section in trad media does. But, I would feel cheap appropriating someone's story in a wholesale fashion and merely respinning it. Still, there's lots of gray area here, more than enough to go around.

Gabriel Snyder, Gawker’s editor-in-chief, who readily agreed with the charge that “blogs are killing newspapers,” though not in the way you might think.

I read all the way to nearly the end of the Opinionater story before I got even a hint of what I think drove the whole situation--which the Times writer seemed largely oblivious to. It came from Gabriel Snyder, Gawker’s editor-in-chief, whose opinion was self-serving, yet right on the mark:

"The bigger threat is that blogs say the things that hidebound newspaper editors are too afraid to let their reporters write."

The Opinionater continuted: "Look at Shapira’s article, says Snyder. It’s missing 'anything resembling a point of view.' And that’s exactly what Nolan’s Gawker post provided."

Exactly. This piece got ripped off in the first place, because it was a character sketch of a ridiculous person, without grasping (or conveying) that the character being sketched was ridiculous.

Gawker took an astute take on it, with it's very funny lede and headline: "'Generational Consultant' Holds America's Fakest Job."

That key insight was entirely lacking in the original piece--and cast the story/character in a completely different light.

Because of that, it was much better than the original. And I agree with Snyder that that's what was doing newspapers in long before the web. They tend to print boring crap that nobody wants to read.

Key problem, which was highlighted perfectly here: no point of view.

oh crap. my comment failed to post earlier in the day, but i'd saved it for later in a temp file. i just posted that, but somehow did it twice, and with the first paragraph as extraneous (an original paste-in from the piece).

what a mess. sorry.

But a brilliant point nonetheless!

Yes. No worries, Dave, I'll delete the second comment.

Your point is well-taken and what I was trying to get at by the phrase "improving news stories". But can we ding journalists for doing what they're not supposed to do, given the standard of impartial reporting? He was reporting, not writing, say, Maureen Dowd's column in the NYT, much less a blog like ours.

Silkstone: You are right ... I didn't consider enough what I said. What I meant to say was that you can't just repackage large chunks of other people's work, and interject comments. If you base something on a singular source, you have to add some vital component to it, or clearly identify it as a "wire" sort of situation. I definitely see your point :)

"3. CONTENT YOU SUBMIT TO OPEN SALON
Open Salon allows you to submit and post text, photos, video, music, messages, comments, notes, advertisements, listings, links and other content (collectively, "User Content"). User Content that you submit to Open Salon or post on the Site, including any personal information included in your User Content, becomes publicly available and can be seen, collected and used by others."

This OS policy statement re the use of material is not unlike the policy staements of other blog platforms and many newspapers. The legality of using material not your own on the web is still very murky and largely unsettled....The key is understanding the difference between that which may be illegal and that which may be unethical....That which leaves a bad taste and that which is done in poor taste....Ultimately we are left with policing ourselves and following or own personal sets of values and ethics....Good writing is also ethical writing. Most of us can tell the difference between that which has the flavor of authenticity and that which smacks of plagiarism....

Rated

Silkstone, good post. Shapira was a bit why in his Outlook piece. He comes off looking bad, like a sore loser. But he didn't lose. He wrote a very good Post piece on that consultant woman, Gawker picked it up, he should have counted his chickens and shut up and NOT listened to his old fogey editor, WHOEVER THAT EDITOR IS. Inquring minds want to know! Confess, Mr editor!

And for picking up other news stories and opinions the main rule is always attribute who you got it from and where it was pubbed, and then you are okay. Look, even Jesus quoted from God, and even though there IS NO God and there WAS NO Jesus, it still makes good Bible reporting, no? Just give credit and attributions. Even God gave credit to the gods who came before Him.,....

I usually take straight news and then I put my comments in. I link to the source of the news, so that people can go see the article if they want.

When you make a factual statement, you've got to show your source. The commentary is all yours!

"But can we ding journalists for doing what they're not supposed to do, given the standard of impartial reporting? He was reporting, not writing, say, Maureen Dowd's column in the NYT, much less a blog like ours."

Primarily, the Gawker editor (Snyder's) point was not about the individual writer, but the system, the newspapers which hold to this standard--who let their standards get in the way of saying anything interesting.

But I would also fault the reporter for writing so credulously. Reporters are supposed to think, to and evaluate, and he did. Come to think of it, Snyer (and I) were slightly off: the piece did have an inherent point of view: that the consultant it was about was a wise/knowledgeable person offering sage advice. That was the underlying crux of the piece.

The Gawker writer basically said to the first reporter, "Are you kidding me? You spent hours with this jackass and pitched the piece in terms of what a great contribution she's making?"

The reporter quoted ridiculous comments like the Nike comment as if they were keen cultural insights. That showed a terrible lack of judgment, in my opinion. And Gawker called him on it.

I have 2 thoughts on that, Dave.

One is that Nolan didn't really add much but a sneer to the article - at least half of his brief piece is just longish quotes from the original article. And his insights are of the shooting fish in a barrel type - shallow and obvious.

The second thought is that there's the old "hoist them on their own petard" way of revealing someone's shortcomings. I read Shapira's article that way -- he lets the facts, especially her own words, speak for themselves, and lets the readers decide. He's respecting the IQ of the readers to get it, whereas Nolan feels the need to point out the obvious, with a smirk. His only creativity is in the "fakest job" title...and, well, that's hardly very creative.

I think your points can hold true in general, but I also think this case shows the shortcomings of many blogs that merely add a "wink wink har har" to the content they use and quote liberally from.

I don't consider that real writing or blogging or humor or opinion. It's more like me turning to K. at breakfast over the newspaper and making a quick joke about a similar article I just read. That's precisely how I read Nolan's piece (frankly, both K. and I have said funnier, more insightful things over the newspaper at breakfast quite a few times. Most of my friends can also toss off better stuff on current events and news just off the tops of their heads. I bet you and your friends can, too).

Yet many bloggers consider that level of comment to be "writing". For me, that's the real issue.