On Tuesday 13 January 2009 17:02, Atanu Datta wrote:
Quoting someone automatically becomes an attribution,
What do you mean "automatically"?. You mean the article has comments scrapped from the web without human intervention.
Yes, exactly. So, you see online articles from The Register, Inquirer, news.com, Znet, etc., that frequently quote statements made in the public by a such an such person published in some other media. That's attribution.
Neat how do explain the truncation.
otherwise it's not a quote at all. So, when you quote someone in a story/article for something those words which form an option is attributed to the person who said it. Quoting someone also needs a journalist to ask for permission. However, if it's already published somewhere, you can simply point to the source, which is what happened in this case.
Afaik there was no reference to the source. (http://ilug-bom...whatever) at best there was afair a reference to Rony Bill in the Mumbal lug (as you probably correctly point out), implying that he said that the product was very good, whereas in fact he was saying exactly the opposite, which you make no metion of.
So, I ask again: Can I be pointed at the mail so that I can analyse the matter? Or is it asking too much? If there's any issue, I am ready to own up in public here. Savvy?
Google Rony Bill LFY ilug-bom
If you think we've done something that doesn't fall under proper journalistic practices, you can go ask anyone from NYT, Guardian, or any other media company that you think abides to a proper journalistic procedure.
I do read those and i dare say you guys have a loooooong way to go on all counts. Well at least you aim high. But long before you achieve those standards you need to have the guts to print the comments that show what readers think about you.
lol!! We're not trying to be an NYT or a Guardian. So, you got our aim totally wrong.
Heck nothing wrong in aiming high in comparison to being aimless.
anyway lets see if this one also is so much water on a ducks back.
Whatever you mean by this statement...
EFY / LFY does not seem to change.