Made-up news bylines: does it matter?
July 3rd, 2009Posted by Judith Townend in Editors' pick, Newspapers, Online Journalism, Press freedom and ethics
Martin Moore, director of the Media Standards Trust, picked up a Private Eye story mentioning that seven regular sports journalists for the Telegraph are fakes.
Using the opportunity to plug the MST’s recently updated Journalisted.com as a research tool, he reckons ‘it would appear to be true.’ Read Moore’s post in full for his thoughts and concerns:
“Even if one accepts that, in an age of print, this was a common and recognised inside practice, does that make it justified? And, in the age of blogging, linking, transparency, and of the importance of cementing the brand of your journalists? Isn’t it time it stopped?”
But does it matter and what’s new about that, a couple of the commenters ask, below the piece.
What are the pros and cons of bylines? Is a byline a helpful mechanism in the checks and balances process anyway? Does a legit byline help decrease the level of agency-lifted copy? Some of the UK’s best journalism is un-bylined after all (the Eye, the Economist etc.).
Tags: bylines, director, Economist, Martin Moore, Media Standards Trust, Private Eye, regular sports journalists, telegraph, the Telegraph, United Kingdom
Similar posts:
- Mediating Conflict: Blogging and the curse of comments
- #Tip of the day from Journalism.co.uk – the importance of ‘deep linking’
- #Tip of the day from Journalism.co.uk – use Posterous for quick and easy blogging
- Guardian study finds just 22.6% of journalists are female
- Are you on the Journa-list? Probably not if you’re a blogger
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:25 am
It matters because of what it’s concealing. The Eye and Economist’s pseudonymous and anonymous pieces are original to the journals: the Telegraph was using made-up names to disguise its use of agency copy. A poor show for transparency and for quality journalism.