Breaking the Sarah Palin Trademark Story: A Lesson in Journalism Ethics

Suzi Parker

One night at 2 a.m. I was reading a story by Matt Lewis about Herman
Cain, a possible 2012 presidential candidate from Georgia. Pursuing
the Cain story further, I discovered that he had trademarked the
phrase “The Hermanator Experience.”

Trademark? Hmm. I wondered if Sarah Palin had trademarked something
with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It seemed like something
she would do. A quick search and voila! Indeed, her longtime family
attorney, Thomas Van Flein, had filed two applications with the office
for the names Sarah Palin and Bristol Palin.
­­­­
But with that scoop about Palin’s branding, a question about
journalism ethics and civility in the 21st century arose. In the
Internet age, does the old journalism rule of giving credit to a
breaking story’s original source still apply?

In this zip-zip era of blogs, it’s easy to lose track of which outlet
breaks a story first, especially as it becomes viral through social
media. The Palin story was picked up by many websites, including
Politico, The Atlantic Wire, Vanity Fair, Talking Points Memo and
Mediaite. Those sites linked to the original story and gave Politics
Daily credit.

Then something odd happened. Vanity Fair began getting credit for the
story. It was as if reporters weren’t even reading the Vanity Fair
piece — and noting its reference to the original source — but just
copying and pasting the link into their stories. To confront or not to
confront? That was the question.

In journalism, professional courtesy has been a long-standing
tradition, and it still pays for reporters to check the accuracy of
sources, whether they’re writing for a newspaper or a blog. In other
words, search for the original source. Not to so do isn’t exactly
unethical, but it is lazy and sloppy at best.

In 2008, Jeff Jarvis wrote on his “Buzz Machine” blog: “I believe it
is vital that we as an industry find ways to point to and give credit
to original reporting. That is how original journalism will be
supported, in the end: by monetizing the audience that comes to it,
whether through advertising or contributions.”

He also created a golden rule: “Link unto others’ good stuff as you
would have them link unto your good stuff.”

Thankfully, ethics still exist among some reporters. When I e-mailed a
Salon reporter, he immediately apologized and said he would link to
Politics Daily. He did so. The same thing happened when I e-mailed a
reporter at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. When a reporter with the
New York Daily News gave another AOL entity credit instead of Politics
Daily, I sent her a nice note explaining that the two were separate
sites. She apologized and changed it within five minutes.

But not everyone was so eager to please.

The Arkansas Times blog didn’t cite Politics Daily — or any site, for
that matter — in the body of the post. The report did have a link to
Talking Points Memo. When I questioned the editor, Max Brantley, he
replied, “I linked to where I read it.”

Easy enough mistake, but I pressed for attribution, explaining that
Politics Daily broke the story. He answered, “I see that now, as will
anyone who opens the link. I rarely dig into the chain of sources on
blog links, particularly when I use so little of the content.”

He finally gave Politics Daily credit for the story but refused to
link to the original source.

Journalism professors say this is a no-no.

“I think a media outlet is absolutely duty bound to link to stuff that
has already been reported elsewhere,” says Mike Lyons, a former
reporter for the Associated Press and now an assistant professor of
journalism at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia. “We would
have expected them to do that in the ‘old media world,’ by giving
credit where credit was due and attributing the original report. Why
would that change?”

Reuters did not do so. Its reporter wrote a lengthy story but never
credited Politics Daily as the first outlet to report the Palin
trademark applications. The Reuters story spread quickly and landed in
many print publications across the world. Reuters did add new
information to the story, reporting that Palin now has a new attorney
handling the trademark issue. (Van Flein now works for U.S. Rep. Paul
Gosar, a Republican from Arizona with strong tea party ties.) The
Reuters reporter didn’t reply to my e-mail.

“Even contemporary journalism ethics would require that an outlet
credit another organization for a story if it is first reported
there,” says Richard J. Goedkoop, professor of communication at
LaSalle University. “To do otherwise might be considered plagiarism,
or at the least, unprofessional.”

And now to the Associated Press. The AP always requires a citation
from other publications that quote a story by the wire service. The
cited reference cannot be more than a paragraph or so of AP’s original
story and the wire service is a stickler for demanding credit.

But when AP reported the trademark story, no credit was given. I
e-mailed the Alaska bureau chief and explained the situation. He
agreed that Politics Daily should have been cited and said he would
correct it in an updated version of the story.

He made the change, but it was the last sentence in the story. Later,
a small victory did arrive from Traci Carl, the AP’s West Editor,
wrote in an e-mail, “You are right. The Associated Press should have
give you credit for breaking the Palin trademark story, and we should
have put it higher in the story. We will do so in the future.”

The Internet is a big, big place and I’m beginning to feel a bit like
Sisyphus. Click click click. I love the Internet, but every now and
then I miss the thud of a rolled-up newspaper landing on my doorstep.
It was firm and final and certainly unsearchable. What we called
“tomorrow’s kitty litter box liner” was a curse, but maybe it was a
blessing, too.