[John Kavanaugh]

It is nice to know, and revealing, that Scott won't be losing any sleep over the question of his journalistic integrity.  I'd love to know if the members of such great clubs as Sand Hills, Prairie Dunes and Ballyneal who will be enabling him on his upcoming tour of the States have any reservations about Scott's motivations.  I'd hate to have to issue a memo to the staff that a rogue blogger will be on site and anything said may find its way in print on a bloggozine.  Or even worse, have to measure your own words in what should be a friendly setting.

[Ross Harmon]

You'd think that a website and writer on golf course architecture would "fall on their sword" a little here and update the article appropiately. Is it really worth ticking off one of the biggest architects (and likely other architects who participate here too) over not quoting a source?

[Ross Harmon]

It is nice to know, and revealing, that Scott won't be losing any sleep over the question of his journalistic integrity.  I'd love to know if the members of such great clubs as Sand Hills, Prairie Dunes and Ballyneal who will be enabling him on his upcoming tour of the States have any reservations about Scott's motivations.  I'd hate to have to issue a memo to the staff that a rogue blogger will be on site and anything said may find its way in print on a bloggozine.  Or even worse, have to measure your own words in what should be a friendly setting.

I don't know Scott or really any of his background here... but from his article and follow-up replys on this thread it seems that he is certianly closing more doors than he is opening.

[John Kavanaugh]

It is nice to know, and revealing, that Scott won't be losing any sleep over the question of his journalistic integrity.  I'd love to know if the members of such great clubs as Sand Hills, Prairie Dunes and Ballyneal who will be enabling him on his upcoming tour of the States have any reservations about Scott's motivations.  I'd hate to have to issue a memo to the staff that a rogue blogger will be on site and anything said may find its way in print on a bloggozine.  Or even worse, have to measure your own words in what should be a friendly setting.

I don't know Scott or really any of his background here... but from his article and follow-up replys on this thread it seems that he is certianly closing more doors than he is opening.

I guess that lies in the hands of his enablers.

[Carl Nichols]

It seems to me that there are two issues here.  The first relates to the ethics of journalism, and whether Scott's article appropriately sources the quotes from Tom, etc.  That issue has been covered above, and I've dealt with enough journalists in my life to side with Tom on that one.

The second issue relates to this website itself, and the appropriateness of one frequent poster/user of this website using the posts of another frequent poster/user of this website for personal gain, whether monetary or for journalistic chops.  In other words, imagine that Scott had appropriately sourced and put in context all of the quotes.  Would we have no problem with it?  

[Cliff Hamm]

Carl...even if properly sourced, quoted, etc.  it seems absolutely wrong to post anyone's words on another site without their permission. 

[Tom Dunne]

But... all of what you mention above is what is wrong with journalism today. "Professional" journalists from yesteryear would never "quote a tweet" (NO WAY to know who has possession of someone's phone), or be so lazy as to insert quotes in an article that were taken from a website and not directly from the source.  It's unprofessional and it's lazy. The worst part is this sort of thing could cause Tom and others to stop participating in the discussion group on this site, which potentially hurts the site as well as all of us who participate.

TS

Ted, writers of all descriptions quote from other outlets all the time. If Politician X says something to a Washington Post reporter, a writer from the NY Times can pick up that quote...with attribution. Like it or not, a public online forum is a perfectly legitimate source from which to draw a quote. It really all comes down to attribution. While providing that attribution may or may not make the story a good one, it would allow it to pass muster in a basic sense.

Tom Doak has every right to be annoyed (and I can understand why he would be), but unless Scott's information is factually inaccurate or somehow misrepresents him, he's actually not the injured party. GolfClubAtlas itself is.

[Rich Goodale]

Tom Doak has every right to be annoyed (and I can understand why he would be), but unless Scott's information is factually inaccurate or somehow misrepresents him, he's actually not the injured party. GolfClubAtlas itself is.

That's the point, Tom.  We are all injured by this indiscretion.

[Garland Bayley]

...

As for the suggestion that the article paints your quotes as coming from an interview, any reader who draws that conclusion is projecting that themselves. The article makes no such suggestion.

...

The article did not give proper attribution to the source of the quotes. Lacking proper attribution, the suggestion is that they came from an interview. Not giving proper attribution seems to me to be a cheap way to make an author seem important.

[Bill Seitz]

The second issue relates to this website itself, and the appropriateness of one frequent poster/user of this website using the posts of another frequent poster/user of this website for personal gain, whether monetary or for journalistic chops.  In other words, imagine that Scott had appropriately sourced and put in context all of the quotes.  Would we have no problem with it?  

I would think courtesy would have dictated that Sean at least alert Tom to his intentions, and maybe ask for clarification or any additional commentary.  But the DG is publicly available, at least to read, so anything posted here is akin to posting something in a public forum.  It may not always seem that way, but then again, the vast majority of us aren't posting anything particularly newsworthy.  Scott took publicly available information which he thought might have some news value and published it.  Due to the nature of the community, however, it probably could have been handled better.  

On the one hand, I don't think there's necessarily anything ethically wrong with that (though he should have clarified that the sources were posts on GCA and not from an interview or direct conversation).  On the other hand, I'd hate to lose valuable insight because people like Tom were worried about something meant for private consumption going public.  But until there's a "member's only" section of the DG that only members can read, then anything on the DG is "fair game".  

[Dan Herrmann]

I don't know if it will help, but I wrote an e-mail to that sites's editor asking that the article be taken down and an apology written.  The address is editorial@golfcoursearchitecture.net if you'd like to do the same.

For one, I feel violated (and the weren't even my own words).  To be blunt, quoting Mr. Doak this way is completely and utterly disgusting.  Maybe that's the way they do in in Australia (Rupert Murdoch), but it's not the way it should be done anywhere.

Scott - just grow up, act like a professional, and do the right thing.

[Mike Hendren]

At worst, unethical.
At best, discourteous.

We're only four words away from putting this to bed:
I apologize.
I accept.  

The treehouse is better than this.

Mike

[Adrian_Stiff]

I am not a Scott Warren fan but I like to think I am fair. I cant see the problem unless there are some serious factual errors in there, I have the old book and I will buy the new book and probably multiple copies for prizes and golf mates pressies so its alerted my interest, its a bit of press and a decent article in my opinion. If Tom really wants it taken down I am sure Adam will drop it...... as Carl Spackler said "its no big deal"

[George Pazin]

It's always sad how many jump to believe the worst in people.

Nice post, Bogey.

[Alex Miller]

I would think courtesy would have dictated that Sean at least alert Tom to his intentions, and maybe ask for clarification or any additional commentary.  But the DG is publicly available, at least to read, so anything posted here is akin to posting something in a public forum.  It may not always seem that way, but then again, the vast majority of us aren't posting anything particularly newsworthy.  Scott took publicly available information which he thought might have some news value and published it.  Due to the nature of the community, however, it probably could have been handled better.  

On the one hand, I don't think there's necessarily anything ethically wrong with that (though he should have clarified that the sources were posts on GCA and not from an interview or direct conversation).  On the other hand, I'd hate to lose valuable insight because people like Tom were worried about something meant for private consumption going public.  But until there's a "member's only" section of the DG that only members can read, then anything on the DG is "fair game".  

+1

[Mark Chaplin]

I'm confused how repeating someone's words made in a public forum is unethical.

[Jud_T]

Can't imagine not quoting the source and, given the generally collegial nature of the site, checking with Tom, who I doubt would have minded the teaser publicity, but either way I'll be first in line to buy the damned thing.  Anyone want to buy an old hardcover edition for the $700 I paid for it back in the roaring naughts? I'll even personally inscribe it...

[Terry Lavin]

I don't know Scott Warren's background, but if he's a blogger and not a trained journalist, this conduct is consistent with the lazy, unprincipled habits of many bloggers nowadays.  Please note that I said, "consistent", not "defensible".  It is not. If Scott is indeed a trained journalist, he should be ashamed of himself, because this sort of "article", which is copped from another source without attribution is clearly contrary to journalism ethics.  If you have the balls to steal the gravamen of your "article" from another source, you should have the balls to tell everybody where it came from, thus revealing your inarguable laziness.  Had he said, "According to information gleaned from Doak's personal post on golfclubatlas.com," everybody would get the true circumstances of his pathetic attempt at a scoop.

Unfortunately, journalism is beset at all sides from unfriendly forces, whether it's the business model issues or the shrinking number of real publications or the onslaught of the two-thumb scribes who blog on subjects as if they are free of any ethical obligations.  A lot of this stuff is entertaining, much of it is so worthless that it's well beyond ephemeral in its effect, but this sort of unattributed, cut-and-paste crap is truly loathsome.

[Michael George]

The discussion regarding journalist integrity completely misses the mark.  Whether a journalist can pick quotes from this site and use them for an article is one thing.  However, this was a member of the Discussion Group, that was granted access by Ran.  Simply, members of this Discussion Group owe a higher standard, as they have been permitted the PRIVILEGE of participating on this site by its owner, Ran.  That PRIVILEGE can be revoked by Ran at any time and possibly should be in this instance.

I had the pleasure of meeting Tom Doak at the 5th Major for the first time.  I appreciated him taking the time to give the tours and to talk with me for a few minutes.  I would never think of posting comments that he may have made in that setting (not that any of them were all that interesting  ).  In addition, I would think that CJ and Eric Smith would have immediately cancelled any future invite of anyone that did, or even considered it.  

The information that was taken from Tom's post is not all that earth shattering or controversial as to in itself cause a major problem.  However, the act of taking any information from here and using it in that manner is what is problematic.  There is a difference between acting ethically as a gentleman member of this discussion group and acting ethically as a journalist.  Mr. Warren failed miserably here.        

[Mark Chaplin]

Michael as the forum is open what action would you take against a non-DG contributor?  Nothing we write here is invisible or private and is searchable on the web.

[Michael George]

Mark - Nothing.  They have not been granted the privilege of posting.  No privilege conferred, no privilege can be taken away.

However, this certainly demonstrates why the other site is private and confidentiality is required.

[Cliff Walston]

The biggest issue I have with the entire situation is the brazenly cavalier attitude Scott has displayed toward's Tom's opinion on the subject, given that he has clearly used Tom for his own professional gain.  You can debate whether Scott's use of the quote did or did not violate some journalistic ethical boundary all you want.  There is no debate he was prick to Tom and has likely alienated one of this forum's most significant contributors.

[Rich Goodale]

I'm confused how repeating someone's words made in a public forum is unethical.

Mark

Gentlemen do not publically quote the words of another gentlemen without asking their permission, regardless of whether the "forum" in which those words were spoken was "public" or "private."

When the (erstwhile?) President of Deal (Andrew, Duke of York) visits Royal Cinque Ports is he aware that anything he might say is likely to be on page 3 of tomorrow's Sun?

Rich

[Matthew Petersen]

At worst, unethical.
At best, discourteous.

We're only four words away from putting this to bed:
I apologize.
I accept.  

The treehouse is better than this.

Mike

A good post.

I do feel Scott is in the wrong here. It's journalism 101 stuff that you have to put a quote in context, because the natural assumption for any reader is that a direct quote is one given directly to the journalist unless it is noted otherwise. Read any reputable news story for examples of this. There's a huge difference between the NYT writing Romney told a group of supports yesterday and Romney said. Same goes for Scott's article. It really is a simple fix but it's a very important piece of context.

And where does that become an ethical concern? Because since the natural assumption of a reader is that a quote not otherwise sourced was one given directly to a reporter, Scott is essentially misrepresenting the reporting he did. It's not really any different than quoting a press release without acknowledging that.

[Mark Chaplin]

Royal Patron old boy and I'm not sure any member would know how to contact The Sun, well there is one but that's another story. I agree Scott's article is worded so you'd think he conducted an interview, but Tom's post was on the record and not off the record which is a journalistic boundary.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()