Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Notoriety helps to get grants, though, just like good stories make for a good reputation as a journalist. That was my point.
I'm not 100% sure where I'm coming from on this particular subject. I'm starting to think the illustration does hold water.
I'm not talking about word-for-word, I'm talking about the story. If a newspaper reporter breaks a story about something, he should get credit when it's reported elsewhere, shouldn't he? They're getting plenty of money and ratings for that story that they just lifted (and then changed the syntax in order for it to be palatable for tv audiences).
|
I already explained that in big stories broken by a newspaper, TV news tends to credit the paper. I also explained that newspapers don't really care if we find out about something through the newspaper, but then go do our own research, interview our own subjects, write our own story, and have our own reporter voice it. To flip it around, newspapers did not credit a TV station with breaking the 9/11 story. They found out about it through television because television was broadcasting it live. But they went and got the story themselves. No one at CNN bitched that a newspaper ran a story about the towers collapsing without specifying which TV reporter was the first to open her mouth about it.
Your definition of plagiarism is wrong, and therefore your entire premise is wrong.