A sad and strange story — a man in the UK killed after a text was misread as saying “nutter.” Even stranger, how I came to be reading it via the Huffington Post — several sources removed from the original story. My discovery chain.
I follow the Huffington Post’s tech account on Twitter, so I saw the story hit my Twitter feed, as shown above. That took me to the Huffington Post’s article:
Here, I see from where the first arrow points that the Huffington Post seems to be summarizing a CNET article. But then, there’s a Daily Mail reference, as the second arrows shows. Oddly, the third arrow shows the Huffington Post shoving some of the story into what appears to be an ad box — which contains one of those misleading acai berry ads I wrote about. Sigh, Huffington Post, sigh.
I suspected that the CNET article itself was drawing from the Daily Mail, so I headed to CNET next:
The arrow shows how the Daily Mail is cited, making me think it was indeed the original source for CNET. But notice the box — the story itself is attributed to the UK’s Bolton News. Hang on to that.
Off to the Daily Mail. I hate going there because the Daily Mail used one of my images without permission and is still using it after I contacted them. Anyway, what did the Daily Mail write?
If you read the story, it seems like there’s more going on that just a single word that got corrected that lead to the murder. A string of abusive messages is said to have been exchanged between the two men. The person convicted of manslaughter was actually the person who sent the “nutter” message, not the person who received it.
But beyond that, notice the arrow. The Bolton News is again cited — the Daily Mail appears to have done nothing here but work off the Bolton News report.
As for the Bolton News, while it was credited by the Daily Mail — and then again by the News.com — it got a link in neither place. Meanwhile, the Huffington Post doesn’t bother to credit it at all.
Bottom line? It’s can be difficult to draw the line between fair use. The Bolton News is published by Gannett’s Newsquest Media Group. Maybe Associated Newspapers’ Daily Mail has an agreement to use anything from Gannett. I doubt it. A quick scan suggests that the Daily Mail merely rewrote what the Bolton News published, which was kind of sucky — but even that might not be against fair use.
What really sucks is that the Daily Mail gave the Bolton News no backlink. This is the 2010s, folks — you link back. And if News.com if working off the Daily Mail’s rewrite — at least try to find the original source, since the Daily Mail cited it.
As for you, Huffington Post. You’re all growed up and part of AOL now. You should backtrack to the original source as well — and provide a link.
It’s not always easy to track an original source, especially when a story has gone far and wide. I know. I deal with this all the time at Search Engine Land. But we should all try — and it wasn’t even hard to do, in this case.
Also see my past post: How The Mainstream Media Stole Our News Story Without Credit.