First of all, I'm going to burst your bubble a little bit: This is not generally considered plagiarism. Plagiarism has a specific meaning both in the law and in the field of journalism, and using facts gleaned from a source is not exactly the same thing, whether or not you cite that source.

Newspapers rip off facts all the time. That practice has been the bread and butter of news gathering since it became a real profession. Overhear a couple of city councilmen talking about "the mayor's prostitute" and then clam up when they see you? Take that fact, go find a willing source (we'll call him Bob) to tell you what you already know, and then publish a story saying Bob told you the mayor hired a prostitute. Where you originally heard the information silently disappears into the ether. You feel honest because you went through the trouble of uncovering the information — you were just helped along by the fact that you already knew it.

However, they are still being shady dicks here, and ripping off stories wholesale is a bit beyond the pale. You're generally expected to cite some source for your info, and you shouldn't deliberately hide sources unless you're protecting somebody. In this case, it is clear that they are intentionally hiding the fact that they ripped off your blog post — the stock photo bit pretty much cinches it (they don't know how to re-discover that bit of information!), and that's why they removed the paragraph.

There is no overriding body to report them to. That only really makes sense in a field where there is some authoritative group or groups — to publish a newspaper, the only place you need to get an OK from is your pocketbook. Think of it like a really expensive, environmentally unfriendly blog.

So what can you do? The same thing you'd do if a marginally famous blog ripped you off without attribution — make noise. Raise a stink in their peer group. Hopefully, some of them will enjoy beating up their competitor for lacking ethics and appreciate the chance to tout their own superiority.

No, this is exactly what I needed to hear. Thanks, chc!

Clickable link:

http://iandennismiller.com/blog/2011/03/total-bummer-longisl...

Sure, maybe they are mean for not giving you attribution. You are right and they are wrong. But it looks like you've got your pound of flesh now. Why not just move on?

I'll be honest: I was going to leave it like that until they posted their last update (the one at 4:23pm in my post). It actually pissed me off at that point, and I started thinking: "hey! This is a freaking newspaper! What else are they going to lie about?"

So I kindof have this grudge now, and I can even couch it in a sort of righteousness... as in, "they're destroying our trust in the whole enterprise of journalism" and whatnot.

So, I guess I don't want to move on because I want to see if there's anyone watching over this. For example: newspapers need to have their circulation audited by some third party. I'm wondering if there's an ethics group consisting of journalists who sortof watch out for things like this.

Not sure what you can do - but I just wrote a letter to the editor.

Well, here's an update:

http://slashdot.org/

:)

Simple. Sue.

Sue them for what? As far as I can tell, there's no copyright violation here.

edit: worth pointing out, I think what they did was unethical, but not illegal.

That's kindof where I am... it was unethical, but I don't really know what is illegal about what they did.

However, I want to believe the courts aren't the only place where something like this gets sorted out. When someone does something unethical, there is usually some group that will hear about it. Academics are somewhat self-policing, and all sorts of ethical issues result in some form of justice being meted out. Journalists seem like they're in the same boat, but journalism isn't my domain of expertise...

...but honestly? I mean, I'm not earning advertising money from the blog, so it's going to be hard to show any kind of damages.

Really, the only thing being broken is some sort of journalistic ethic here, and I figure there must be some kind of body that hears these kinds of complaints outside of a courtroom.

EDIT: well - okay, but what does one sue for in a case like this?

If your copyright notice is in place, then Burn'em they've got cash for... Bigtime media feels they can walk over any & everybody...so (WTF) Burn'em.