[promoted by BooMan]

While we bloggers have begun to take seriously complaints that we are dangerous `bulls in a china shop’ because we can say what we want without fact-checking and editorial control, we forget that a major part of our media (of the commentary part, at least) has long been publishing that way–without any complaints at all.

This question came up here recently in the Comments attached to a post by BooMan last Thursday.  I attached a rant about how there is no editorial control over columnists like Novak, assuming that this was common knowledge.

Apparently, I was wrong.

In a Reply, BooMan wrote:

I assume Novak has some kind of editorial oversight.  I also assume his long distinguished career affords him a wider berth than most other reporters.

BooMan, I am sure, was speaking with tongue firmly in cheek about Novak’s career (the “distinguished” part, at least), but his Reply does reflect the beliefs of most of people–and not just in the blogosphere.  When something appears in a newspaper, we assume that someone has vetted the article.

When I replied that Novak has no oversight, BooMan (quite appropriately) challenged me to back up my claim:

Do you have a source for this allegation?

The Chicago Sun-Times or Washington Post editors exercise no editorial oversight?

This diary is my answer.

If you look carefully in most newspapers, you will see copyright assertions for the articles and columns not copyrighted by the publication itself.  Comic strips, for example, and opinion columns often are accompanied by that little ©.  These items are governed by specific copyright laws and agreements quite different from those with UPI and Reuters (news sources whose material can be rewritten to meet the needs and styles of the publications within established parameters–that credit be given, for example).

This distinction is one that is often forgotten, and is one that is at the heart of another difference we often elide… that between “reporter” and “columnist.”  A reporter is part of a chain of responsibility governed by the publication.  A reporter, generally an actual employee of the publication, does not own the copyright to the work produced–the publication does.  In that way, the publication not only takes responsibility for what is written, but reserves the right to fact-check, edit, and otherwise change the work–or to combine it with other work it has available (such as a wire-service report).  Until 1963, when Novak and Rowland Evans began “Inside Report,” Novak, indeed, was just such a reporter.

That changed with syndication.  Though the Chicago Sun Times was the “home” paper for the column, Creators Syndicate has distributed it for a long time now, and holds the copyright (though it does not operate in any capacity of editorial oversight).  Because of that, Novak became something other than a reporter–a columnist.  He and Evans were no longer part of a process of vetting and chain or responsibility under control of the publication.

[What follows of copyright law was found here].

Current copyright law contains not just protection for the copyright holder against unauthorized use, but prevents others from attributing to the creator things he or she did not, in fact, write (or otherwise create).  In other words, no one can change a copyrighted column unless they hold the copyright or have attained permission to make the change.  That means that even the Chicago Sun Times is unable to change anything in a Novak column without express permission.  Otherwise, all that paper can do (all any paper can do) is decide to either run the column or not.  

Sometimes the fact of a syndicate holding the copyright can lead to peculiar situations (remember: the holder of the copyright can make any changes it wants, whether it was the actual writer or not).  Universal Press Syndicate (which acts as an editorial entity, something Creators Syndicate does not do), for example, decided to alter an Ann Coulter column changing her description of rival columnist Helen Thomas (syndicated by Hearst) to “dyspeptic, old” from “old Arab.”  The change came to light when the column, in its original form, was posted on Coulter’s website–but still with the Universal Press Syndicate copyright.

Universal Press Syndicate did not want to give up its rights under copyright law, but Coulter wanted to keep her writing as she meant it to be.  Eventually, the two sides came to a Coulter-favoring agreement.

Until now, the line under Coulter’s columns said “copyright Universal Press Syndicate.” Under the agreement, all columns on AnnCoulter.com will say “distributed by Universal Press Syndicate (c) Ann Coulter” if the print and Web versions of the column are the same.

If the versions are not the same, the line will say “(c) Ann Coulter” only.

In other words, Coulter has taken complete control from UPS.  Now, there is no editorial oversight on her work at all.

Pretty much, Novak is in the same position, though his columns still do carry the Creators Syndicate copyright.

No matter what the reputation someone has established, all writers need a check on what they are doing–especially when their readers assume that the information they are presenting has, indeed, been verified.  As SusanHu says in another Comment to that BooMan diary,

When I submit a letter to the editor at my local paper, the editor calls me up to make sure I’m who I say I am.  And if I quote another source, he expects me to e-mail him the link to that source. He also frequently includes full WWW links in the published LTEs.

ALSO: I think we’re fairly careful as bloggers.  Yesterday, for example, I got a report from someone.  It included the private e-mail address of a major rightwing journalist.  I elected to leave that address out of the report because I couldn’t verify that it was alright to publish it.

The other neat thing about writing on blogs is that readers tell us when we’ve gotten something wrong.  And how … and that’s terrific.

On a blog, the responses are right there, with the original.  In a newspaper, this is not the case.  A letter only appears sometime later, if at all.  

Today’s syndicated columnists, Coulter and Novak included, have very little check on what they are saying.  There is very little possibility for holding them responsible for their words.  Perhaps this is why it is so easy for Novak to “out” a CIA agent or for Coulter to constantly write things that, well, are not quite true.  Perhaps, also, it is why columnists like Armstrong Williams can take huge amounts of government money.  A syndicated columnist, after all, isn’t an employee, but an independent business.  With no one to answer to, Williams (apparently) felt he could do whatever he wanted.

Sure, freedom to do what one wants is nice… but a little responsibiity is a good thing, too.

Update [2005-7-31 12:6:29 by Aaron Barlow]:Today’s The New York Times contains an op-ed piece describing how they edit op-ed submissions–all of which are copyrighted by The Times. It’s interesting, for it shows just was does not happen to the Novaks and Coulters and Wills of the world–and why their stuff doesn’t appear in The Times (which doesn’t run anything it doesn’t hold the copyright to).

0 0 votes
Article Rating