Friday, March 19, 2004

More on Updating and Linkage in Online News New: University president to retire (see end of this item) Life was simpler (if not better) when yesterday's newspaper simply wrapped today's fish or lined the bottom of the birdcage. At an online news site, however, yesterday's news can have an extended life as a "background" link to allow a new reader to catch up on the story. Choosing which background stories to include, if any, isn't always as easy as it seems. That was part of the reason I started following a Hartford Courant story last week involving allegations of plagiarism in an opinion piece the paper ran on Feb. 26. A correction of some factual errors followed on March 3, then a Courant editor wrote a dismayed report of the apparent plagiarism on March 9. The story made headlines because the column's author is not just any writer being sloppy with citations, but a state university president. I noticed the lack of linkage between the editor's note, the correction and the Feb. 26 column on the Courant's ctnow.com website March 9, corresponded with the editor about linkage policies, and wrote about the result. I've updated that blog essay almost daily for the past week, noting the off-and-on use of links in subsequent stories about the apologetic academician's return to face his faculty and trustees. Along the way, the Feb. 26 column itself dropped out of sight, beyond reach of the site search engine or archival database. That wasn't entirely surprising, since Courant stories normally remain online only for a couple of weeks, as the site notes, and the time was up. However, the column returned Friday afternoon with a new address, a brief note giving its original publication date, and a fresh copy of the March 3 correction. That revival is something I haven't noticed on a news website before, which is what inspired this fresh burst of blogging, along with the fact that the site added two other documents from a non-Courant source, which is also an uncommon practice in presenting a story online. Those documents are the university system chancellor's report calling the article, "a clear, unacceptable case of plagiarism." The reborn column appeared as one of eight "Related" links on Friday's follow-up story -- the first new development being that the university president's board of trustees postponed a meeting about his case after he was hospitalized earlier this week. It makes sense for the site to use the original item as part of the discussion of the controversy. However, the way it was brought back does have some awkward aspects: Heading the article "Original Story" in quotation marks is probably just an unfortunate choice of words, but could be taken as an editorial comment. The article has a new address, so any previous pages (or outsiders' weblogs) that referenced its old address still have "broken links." The revived page makes no mention of the controversy or the corrections. It's a fair assumption that the only readers who arrive there will be following the link from today's main story and will have seen the sidebar links to the correction and related material. However, if readers use the page's "e-mail story"or "printer-friendly" options, they will get a copy without those sidebars, just with the cryptic "It is unedited" comment. "Related" items presented with Friday's story are the Courant stories of March 10, 11, 12, 16 and 18, a copy of the March 3 correction, and a March 12 comparison table of the story and its apparent sources. A link to the editorial page editor's March 9 column, which made the first public plagiarism allegation, is not included. (It is still on the site and available through a site search.) That article seems to me to be as valuable a background document as the "Original Article," moreso than some of the linked mid-week stories. Those are, of course, somewhat repetitious, having been written for newspaper readers with no background links to click. In addition to the "Related" items, a "Links" sidebar box allows the reader to download two documents in Microsoft Word format, the copies of memos from the Connecticut State University system's chancellor to the board of trustees concerning his investigation of the case. There is no link to the university president's apology to his faculty last week, which might be another appropriate background document to include. The other shoe: Later on Friday and again on Saturday, ctnow.com carried the news that Central Conecticut State University President Richard L. Judd will retire in July, and that the board of trustees apparently will drop its investigation of his February article's use of source material. The trustees' office issued a statement praising Judd's 40 years of service to the university. An alumnus, he returned as a teacher and administrator, eventually becoming president in 1996. Searching & Linkage: The Saturday story carried the same sidebar links as Friday's version, plus the text of Judd's short note announcing his intention to retire. Elsewhere, Saturday's ctnow site included Courant letters to the editor, one saying Judd had  been an "exemplary educator and leader" who was being treated unfairly. It said the newspaper should have overlooked his column's errors as no great sin in "an op-ed, not a paper submitted as a course requirement or doctoral dissertation."  While ctnow did not link the developing story pages to opinion columns, letters or editorial notes, the site's does keep such material in the freely searchable portion of its site, which made the linkage in these two weblog pages possible -- as well as making the continuing coverage available to other readers who arrive seeking background on the story. This item was updated on March 19 and 20. 9:43:12 PM

© Copyright 2009 Bob Stepno. Last update: 7/27/09; 3:20:29 AM.