Nope.  On 11/29 (the article went up on 11/30):

jackie crosby  said…

  Rosie:

  Drop me a line. I cover Target for a newspaper in Minneapolis. (And am a former sports editor of the Red and Black…)

  Best,
  Jackie
  November 29, 2007 6:38 PM

(http://rosiesiman.bl...)

—–

On [December 2, 2007, 5:51 pm] Crosby said:

To be fair, I did credit the original source of the flap: The teacher from the University of Georgia. She put it out there. The bloggers, including you, just linked to her work

(http://www.thedeets….)

—–

So, what's going on here?  Crosby knew that Siman self-published and was first to print (unless she's savvy enough to redate her posts..not sure how works using Blogger) so why does she dissaemble while commenting at the Deets?

Thoughts?

“She wrote a research paper on the ethics of social marketing tools in a public relations class at the University of Georgia. When her teacher, Kaye Sweetser, heard Siman's story, she posted it on her blog.

And as happens, one blogger told another. And so on, and so on.”

The first two sentences don't even belong together in the same paragraph – you can see the footprint of the editor here – the line about the research paper belongs in the paragraph above it (re: Siman's insistence on transparency) but has been awkwardly moved to the paragraph below to prevent two hanging lines in a row.

This gives the impression that the paper initiated the conversation with Sweester, which is misleading.  It also confuses the timeline completely.

Siman was the one to break the story, not Sweester.  Siman posted on 10/8 and 10/9 with Sweester posting her write-up on 10/10 – without a link to Siman's posts.  Siman has smartly gone back and placed links to her site in the comments on Sweester's post.

The Strib has an uneven approach to citation from online soruces which can be forgiven and improved with constructive feedback.  Even with editorial cuts Crosby should have insisted the article be run with a link to Siman's original article at minimum or not at all.

What can't be forgiven is the sliding editorial standards which confuse the actual story and the misleading headline.

And to Dave Hanners: When you put your cowboy boots and hop onto Ed Kohler's coffee table, can I liveblog it? 

Do you think that bloggers don't do the same? Is there a line between what the Star Tribune writes and what MinMon writes or MinnPost writes or CityPages writes or what the Deets writes?

She used a blogger to source a story that she already read through the blogger. If I called the Star Tribune and asked them for sources on a story they already wrote you better be damn sure they'd ask for attribution.

The appropriate journalistic behavior, and emerging convention, is that when we write about a story that has already been covered elsewhere, we credit the prior source. If the story had been in a smaller local newspaper, or on a local TV station, the Strib would have – or should have – credited that outlet. That the story first appeared locally on a blog really makes no difference.

It is really not hard to do this. For better or worse, we have passed the point when we could persuade readers that all our stories are exclusive originals; some are, but many are value-added, and it does not diminish our power or authority to acknowledge this. Also, it is also not smart not to do this. Because, as the comments on Ed's site and this MnMon post illustrate, the blogosphere is watching.

The appropriate journalistic behavior, and emerging convention, is that when we write about a story that has already been covered elsewhere, we credit the prior source. If the story had been in a smaller local newspaper, or on a local TV station, the Strib would have – or should have – credited that outlet. That the story first appeared locally on a blog really makes no difference.

It is really not hard to do this. For better or worse, we have passed the point when we could persuade readers that all our stories are exclusive originals; some are, but many are value-added, and it does not diminish our power or authority to acknowledge this. Also, it is also not smart not to do this. Because, as the comments on Ed’s site and this MnMon post illustrate, the blogosphere is watching.