Does USC Annenberg OJR Want Old Media Journalists to Shut Up?
Is the LA Times telling its readers to shut up? NO. But the USC Annenberg Online Journalism Review headlined with such an erroneous attribution.
Is putting words in another organization’s mouth any way for Robert Niles to run the public media face of an institution of higher learning which purports to uphold the “highest standards of ethical conduct”? In fact, the Annenberg School for Communications Graduate Program in Online Journalism subjects students engaging in “fabrication” to explusion from the school.
Putting words in another organization’s mouth and headling with fabricated attributions is also contrary to the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, which warns:
Make certain that headlines, news teases and quotations do not misrepresent.
Niles, however, does NOT misrepresent the L.A. Times editorial in his editorial, he point blank fabricates a direct, attributed quotation!
Niles’ unprofessional, unethical headline:
The L.A. Times tells its readers: ‘Shut up’
Contrary to the erroneous, mis-attributed headline citation manufactured by Niles for the USC Annenberg Online Journalism Review, the L.A. Times says no such thing in the editorial the Niles’ editorial references.
Niles’ one-line summary of his opinion of the L.A. Times opinion accurately summarizes his take on the L.A. Times editorial, but his headline inapproriately uses a direct quotation to attribute words to an organization that did not utter them.
Niles purports to know the real intent of the L.A. Times in its editorial and presents his subjective understanding as attibuted truth. No where in his 15 plus paragraph piece, does Niles directly backup his headline quotation of the L.A. Times.
Niles concludes his editorial:
But what does The Times tell them with this editorial?
“Shut up.”
The University of Melbourne, School of Culture and Communication, Mediia & Communications Program, Professional Writing/Wriitng Journalism Style Guide on the use of quotations:
Double quotation marks signify direct speech by a person, or exact text taken from another source. Do not use double quotation marks for anything else.
Quotation marks can also be used in a number of other situations with careful consideration:
for a technical term on its first mention in a non-technical document,
for a word or phrase that has been coined but is not yet in common usage,
for ironic emphasis.
Perhaps Niles believes it is appropriate to manufacuture a direct quotation for “ironic emphasis.” Headlining with subjective, personal irony does not suggest “careful consideration” though and misrepresents the words of the L.A. Times to readers of the OJR.
Niles indicates that because the L.A. Times juxtaposed Osama bin Laden with Google, the Times “lit its credibiity on fire with that statement, one shouldn’t need to dissect the rest of its ridiculous editorial.”
The same can be said of Niles’ editorial, given the fabricated headline quotation. Niles did attempt to rebut the L.A. Times though. I rebut Nile’s opening ode to $160 billion market cap Google:
Niles engages in typical Google adulation, lauding the “search engine company” which he says has: “paid publishers billions of dollars to create original content” (including OJR and himself).
Google has done nothing of the sort. Niles merely respins the Google AdSense spin:
Google believes relevant advertising can be as useful as search results or other forms of content. And that advertising can enhance the experience for visitors to a publisher’s Web site, while helping publisher recover some of their investment in creating content of value.
The beneficent Google? Google won’t even respect standard business protocol and provide AdSense fueled Web sites with a revenue share commission schedule.
THE GREAT GOOGLE NEWS IS A RUSE, READ MORE: Google News is a Joke: LA Times is NOT Laughing