Another questionable exclusive
As they have done in the past, the Times Leader claims another questionable exclusive. Today's exclusive is, once again, based on publicly-available federal records.
Between the newspaper's previous record of questionable exclusives, and their recent tendency to quote their own editors in stories, I don't think Don Sherwood is the only one running scared here. Then again, if you were facing the possibility of being bought out by a hated rival, I'd be running scared too.
Between the newspaper's previous record of questionable exclusives, and their recent tendency to quote their own editors in stories, I don't think Don Sherwood is the only one running scared here. Then again, if you were facing the possibility of being bought out by a hated rival, I'd be running scared too.
posted by Howard Beale at 2:42 PM
4 Comments:
So I'm clear, are you questioning the exclusive tag because the story was gathered from public records, available to others, or because some other news organization had the story?
the way I understand "exclusive" - it means you are the only news organization in the market to run the story. No one else has it.
I feel an exclusive story is a major story that a station/newspaper worked really hard to get. Something that took a lot of time to prepare, from getting the interviews, to connecting the dots.
Simply getting Don Sherwood's federal campaign records and adding a "Uh oh, Sherwood could be fucked" tone doesn't sound like an exclusive to me. But the TL does has a record of questionable exclusives...
"Exclusive" used to mean that a signficiant amount of enterprise reporting was expended, and that there was a near-certain chance you were the only organization pursuing it/getting the interviews/obtaining the documentation.
At the TL it's used the way marketers use "New & Improved" -- it's not really, but we got your attention.
Post a Comment
<< Home