Does plagiarism matter in the blogosphere?

Plagiarism is a bit like pornography - you know it when you see it, to paraphrase US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart. 

But is the standard the same for bloggers? Given most blogs informal and causal tones, should bloggers be held to the same ethical standards of newspapers?

For some news organizations, "borrowing ideas" is OK, but not the "direct words".  For others, it is "one of journalism's unforgivable sins".
|
Case in point, if I was writing this for a newspaper, I would have probably written:  For some news organizations like the Detroit Free Press, "borrowing ideas...is considered fair journalistic practice", but "words directly quoted from sources other than the writer's own reporting should be attributed."  For others like the Grand Forks Herald, it is "one of journalism's unforgivable sins", according to published excerpts on plagiarism by the Committee of Concerned Journalists.

See any difference?  Both provide accurate information and attribute the sources - albeit one more informally through a link.  But is attribution as important as accuracy and timeliness in the blog world?

The question was recently raised in Bob Ingle's blog "DRPA's bridge over troubled waters" and in an email to PolitickerNJ.com.

In his blog Ingle wrote: "It (DRPA) pays between 9 and 18 percent more per employee than other bridge agencies in the region."

A day earlier, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported: "It (DRPA) pays 9 to 18 percent more, per employee, than other toll-bridge agencies in the region..."

For the most part, Ingle's readers felt attribution wasn't as important as getting the facts straight and keeping the spotlight on government abuses and shortcomings.  After all, the DRPA does pay its employees more than any other bridge agency in the region according to the Inquirer analysis - important stuff given the authority's proposed toll increase?

From Paul Nussbaum's view - the Inkie reporter who penned the story - "if we did the work, we should get the credit."

Ingle agrees.  When asked about the blog, Ingle acknowledged that he routinely credits his sources - his archived blogs prove his point.  In this instance, he thought the source was a Sunday Gannett's Courier Post article.  An early morning post before he left for the office, tossed notes and a Tuesday trash pick-up inadvertently led to the missing attribution.   

Credit Ingle for keeping the bar high --- even though his blog readers may not care.  

Credit the Inquirer for its original work on the story.