Mitch Albom stole material.  Detroit Free Press’

Carole Leigh Hutton, publisher and editor, said the problems reflect a lack of familiarity with the paper’s rules on attribution. She pledged to take steps to address them. The paper’s ethics policy requires reporters to give credit when they use the work of others. 

says AP. 

The paper’s rules on attribution?  Not basic honesty or universally accepted rules of writing in civilized society?  She’s saying there have to be rules for this?

=============

Add this from Tapscott’s Copy Desk, where the Free Press story is excellently covered:

Since when do professional journalists have to be reminded that simple honesty dictates that they not present the work of others as if it was their own?

The Austin Bay blog has this at http://austinbay.net/blog/index.php?p=323#comment-7751.  It gets at the mentality of some of our best and brightest newsies, P. Jennings and M. Wallace.  Old news yes, 1989, but is it?

http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/cyberalert/2001/cyb20011010.asp#4
===================
A reprint from the April 1989 MediaWatch, a monthly newsletter then-published by the MRC:

Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace Agree
Reporters First, Americans Second

In a future war involving U.S. soldiers what would a TV reporter do if he learned the enemy troops with which he was traveling were about to launch a surprise attack on an American unit? That’s just the question Harvard University professor Charles Ogletree Jr, as moderator of PBS’ Ethics in America series, posed to ABC anchor Peter Jennings and 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace. Both agreed getting ambush footage for the evening news would come before warning the U.S. troops.

For the March 7 installment on battlefield ethics Ogletree set up a theoretical war between the North Kosanese and the U.S.-supported South Kosanese. At first Jennings responded: “If I was with a North Kosanese unit that came upon Americans, I think I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans.”

Wallace countered that other reporters, including himself, “would regard it simply as another story that they are there to cover.” Jennings’ position bewildered Wallace: “I’m a little bit of a loss to understand why, because you are an American, you would not have covered that story.”

“Don’t you have a higher duty as an American citizen to do all you can to save the lives of soldiers rather than this journalistic ethic of reporting fact?” Ogletree asked. Without hesitating Wallace responded: “No, you don’t have higher duty… you’re a reporter.” This convinces Jennings, who concedes, “I think he’s right too, I chickened out.”

Ogletree turns to Brent Scrowcroft, now the National Security Adviser, who argues “you’re Americans first, and you’re journalists second.” Wallace is mystified by the concept, wondering “what in the world is wrong with photographing this attack by North Kosanese on American soldiers?” Retired General William Westmoreland then points out that “it would be repugnant to the American listening public to see on film an ambush of an American platoon by our national enemy.”

A few minutes later Ogletree notes the “venomous reaction” from George Connell, a Marine Corps Colonel. “I feel utter contempt. Two days later they’re both walking off my hilltop, they’re two hundred yards away and they get ambushed. And they’re lying there wounded. And they’re going to expect I’m going to send Marines up there to get them. They’re just journalists, they’re not Americans.”

Wallace and Jennings agree, “it’s a fair reaction.” The discussion concludes as Connell says: “But I’ll do it. And that’s what makes me so contemptuous of them. And Marines will die, going to get a couple of journalists.”

END Reprint

Stunned by the Trice reappearance (without explanation for absence), I forgot to take note that Schmich got back yesterday — “Illness’ 2 voices agree: Being sick is no fun at all.” She’s been sick and tells us about it, lightweightly describing a horse (hoarse?) race between “your eight-year-old” and “your 108-year-old.”

No problem. Chi Trib demographics clearly call for such, as its sales people put it at Media Kit:

On its discredited Koran-flushing story that led to riots and deaths abroad:

Newsweek’s editor, Mark Whitaker, apologized to the victims on Sunday and said the magazine inaccurately reported that U.S. military investigators had confirmed that personnel at the detention facility in Cuba had flushed the Muslim holy book down the toilet.

Not to its readers?  For snapping up a tip and running it gossip-like in good old breezy fashion, never suspecting there was a hot-to-trot anti-Musharraf Pakistani movie actor-activist there to read it aloud on the Muslim street?  Where was the sensitivity to The Street, about which we have heard so little lately? 

And be advised that what you have here is very mild commentary.  For link after link to informed indignation about Newsweek and its Michael Isikoff, author of the rumor, start with www.instapundit.com, which as usual is all over this thing.

Trice has re-appeared page one Metro in Chi Trib, leading with this:

A South Carolina Republican legislator, not known for his sensitivity and tact, incensed a bunch of people last month when he said he didn’t understand why women who are victims of domestic violence fall back into the arms of their abusers.

a) The commas are ridiculous.  b) “A bunch” is alarmingly chatty. 

In any case, she identifies the faintly damned legislator in paragraph two:

Rep. John Graham Altman made his comments just after helping to defeat a criminal domestic violence bill working its way through a legislative committee. That bill failed at the same time one protecting chickens passed.

They care more about chickens than women in South Carolina!  Point made in manner most droll. 

Etc.  Can’t read any more.  At any rate, she’s back, without explanation where she’s been for a week, having led fans and at least one observer to ponder her fate.  Maybe it took a week to put today’s column together, as opposed to the usual half week.