"Hope you are doing well. Since we have around 300 journalists on our email list, I was wondering if we could reprint your post (with attribution of course) on the new public records law on our Raleigh Telegram website."I replied:
"Sure, just please precede with 'As originally published at roch101.blogspot.com' with a link to the post."Gregg did neither. He did, however, add a byline that said, "By the Raleigh Telegram."
I wrote to Gregg pointing out to him that he did not honor our agreement. On August 10th, he said he'd rather remove the article.
"I will be updating the website tomorrow and will be glad to remove the item. Sorry you are "peeved" and for any confusion we may have caused but again, we clearly labeled it to the best of our ability. We feel that anyone with any common sense reading it would know that you wrote it."Gregg has yet to honor either of his promises. The article remains online with "By The Raleigh Telegram."
From: The Raleigh Telegram
ReplyDeleteMr. Smith -- I just sent you an email regarding this posting which will hopefully explain this situation in a better light.
I am on vacation (camping) without daily access to a computer and have tried several times to log onto our Raleigh Telegram FTP site by driving to use someone else's internet connection.
Despite several attempts to try and remove the page with your story on it as planned, I have been unsuccessful in logging onto our site from this location, which is several hours from our office.
The error was ours in not precisely and exactly following your request in placing the attribution as a precedent to the article as opposed to our attribution that appeared in the first and last paragraphs along with the link to your website that also was inserted to the article.
It was an honest error not a "dishonest" representation and we are somewhat concerned that a well-intentioned attempt to educate journalists on a new NC law has been portrayed as something less than honorable.
If we were trying to be dishonest, then when we originally posted the item, we wouldn't have attributed you as the author of the article in the first and last paragraphs and even provided a link to your website as you had requested.
The following statements were BOTH posted with the original article:
"Greensboro blogger and public records activist Roch Smith, Jr. takes a look at the new law and its good and bad components"
"ABOUT THE AUTHOR: This article was reprinted with permission and was written by Roch Smith, Jr. of The Roch 101 blog in Greensboro, North Carolina. To read his blog, visit his website at http://roch101.blogspot.com"
As I mentioned in my email, we will be glad to post a notice on the front page of our website this weekend as soon as I return. We will make it very clear to all of our readers that you wrote the article and we will remove the story entirely.
In our opinion it was apparent in the original posting that you authored the item, but again, we are addressing your concerns as quickly as possible.
Sorry that it has snowballed because I am not able to access our FTP server immediately.
Thank you for your time.
Randall
Your original response to me was to defend your choices and explain why you intentionally made them. To now describe them as "errors" is disingenuous.
ReplyDelete