papsrus

Thanks HP. Glad to know all's well. I've kind of tried to scale back my own online time, so I hear you (or rather, hear MG). Organissimo (meaning, the folks here) is too valuable a resource for me to cut the cord altogether, though. But, here's hoping MG is groovin' magnificently, wherever he is.

He had been in and out and dealing with some internet issues a while ago, I think. But has he given us up for good? Haven't seen hide nor hair of him in ages. Miss his contributions, enthusiasm and insights into African musics.

This means we will eventually all be in possession of insanely valuable collectors items! ... in about 50 years ...

Substitute a hand-held digital recorder for the old tape recorder you have kicking around your desk drawer, proceed as you would have in the stone age (put phone on speaker, etc). I'm sure there are better technologies, but this is what the scribes I work with seem to do. Plus you can use it in the field as you would a tape recorder.

Man, this is one I can't wait to dive into.

Winnipeg and 50.

Just unwrapped this one and am spinning it now. Haven't gotten to "Gate's Blues" yet, but so far Miller particularly, and Gorman as well -- but the whole band, really -- are in powerful form. It doesn't sound like anyone is along for the ride. They all have their foot to the pedal, even on the more mid-tempo stuff. And quite well-recorded, too (it was 1962, after all). Very nice.

Ah yes. The old n/2+7 rule. Of course.

The most startling thing in that story is that the age of consent in Pa. is 16, as it is in about half the states and all of Canada. So the guy did nothing 'illegal.' In fact, if our laws codify our morality, he did nothing immoral either.

My vote for this year's MVP: Peyton Manning, hands down.

Interesting discussion. Allen and Jeff, you have got me interested in Marquis' book. Thanks.

Thanks for that. Interesting. Still, given the events as you've laid them out, I'm not convinced that they lead to the inevitable conclusion that "greed" was the primary motivation for non-profit Poynter in all this, nor, for that matter, that "nobody in their audience gave a shit about reading lots of their analysis." You're certainly welcome to that opinion, and I'm sure you're not alone. And as I said, perhaps you're right. Perhaps not.

Perhaps greed was their motivation. Perhaps not. The Washpost's Erik Wemple offers his take: Wemple further indicates that the discrepancies in the way Romenesko used attribution were brought to Moor's attention by the Columbia Journalism Review. It was only after that point that she began to look into it. I'm not sure I would arrive at the conclusion that greed was Moor's motivation, given this description of events.

So what you're saying is that Poynter suddenly found religion on the question of attribution only after a change in format that required Romenesko to write longer pieces -- a change in format driven by the desire to generate more (or, actually, longer) page views? The "sticky" factor, I guess. That his previous writing style didn't require it, but the new emphasis on longer pieces does. I've never been clear, actually, on whether the metric is "time spent" on a web site (stickiness) or "page views" (volume of traffic). A combination of the two is likely ideal. But there is no doubt that tailoring content to generate increased traffic -- whatever your metric -- is impacting journalism, perhaps not entirely in a negative way. To what extent that played a role here is an interesting question.

Yes, the Hornsby recordings are a real treat! Thanks, Jeff, for bringing them to our attention and offering the opportunity to listen to them. Wonderful stuff. And thanks for the excellent writeup introducing them.

Interesting. I took a few classes at Poynter back in the day. It is a first-class institution, IMO. I have read Romenesko, but not religiously, and always found him to be relevant and insightful. And as the article says, there's certainly no reason for him to claim someone else's writing as his own, given the nature of his work. But I can understand Poynter's point of view here. While what he failed to properly quote may not have been that big a deal, you do run the danger of entering kind of a slippery slope here, particularly if a pattern emerges. And Poynter would open themselves up to criticism for letting it slide in one case and not others, if they didn't address it here. And no one's work should be above criticism. It's kind of ironic that Romenesko apparently doesn't appreciate that.

Like, say, an eye-witness account? He did not go only to the police. He did not go to the police at all. I think there are choices other than resorting to vigilantism. Reporting allegations of criminal activity on the part of someone under your supervision to the police, that would be one alternative.

You've returned to this a couple of times. The problem is, we do know that child molesters continue to molest, particularly if they are never confronted, apprehended and some attempt at rehabilitation is made. Paterno indeed should have known that the man was going to continue to molest. The problem with this analogy is that Paterno didn't report anything to the police, did he?

Damn. They didn't call me. Guess I'd better prepare to fend for myself. ...

I was watching at 2 p.m. and the much-hyped nationwide "test" consisted of switching me over to a CSPAN interview with Rick Santorum. Yeah that's a fail. So I guess at this point we don't have a nationwide emergency broadcast system. ... maybe we should keep this quiet.

This thread is about Penn State, right? ... anyways, the institution failed. That seems pretty clear. Their actions since this all came to light, including tonight's firing of Paterno, acknowledge that. Just my opinion. I do not intend to research legal statutes to defend it, although hats off to BigWheel for doing so.

Nice. Thanks for mentioning the Jelly Roll again. Will be ordering that here as well.

Some folks are already looking forward to a rematch for the national championship, if things play out to where LSU wins the SEC and Bama finishes with this one loss. I could live with that, but wouldn't mind seeing (if things play out) an LSU-Oklahoma State title game either. Electric offense vs. smash-mouth defense. Stanford's in the mix, I guess, but I'm not sold. And forget Boise State. Could they win a one-off against any of the above? Sure. Are they one of the top two teams in the country. Nope.

The Mitchell is outstanding Chuck. Really enjoying it. Thank you for putting this out.

Yes! Fastest delivery known to man. Mine arrived today. Haven't listened yet, but looking forward to it.