Skip to content or view screen version

OxStu pinch material from indymedia

not the oxstu (or the cherwell) | 21.11.2003 18:40 | Indymedia | Oxford

The 'Oxford Student', the lesser of two evil (IMO) student papers in Oxford was caught out quoting Oxford indymedia articles without giving any credit this week.

Last week the OxStu ran a frontpage article about a trial at Gloucester Crown Court.
The article was riddled with exaggeration and innaccuracy. So after the case was thrown
out, I posted an article to indymedia, signed 'not the oxstu'.

Throughout the events I refused to speak to the student press because previous bad
experiences have made me wonder if it's worth it. Imagine my surprise when this
week's OxStu quotes me as being 'very relieved' at the outcome and 'really glad
to have it over with'.

Comments lifted almost exactly from:
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/oxford/2003/11/280424.html

although, in true OxStu style, they still manage to make a mistake, even when
spoon-fed, replacing 'it's a big relief' with the words 'very relieved'.

And of course, they don't acknowledge where they got this from. A reader would
no doubt assume I had given them an interview and agreed with the rest of the
(bollocks in the) article.

not the oxstu (or the cherwell)

Comments

Hide the following 15 comments

see also

21.11.2003 19:05

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/oxford/2003/11/280009.html

related article

Mind That Reporter

21.11.2003 20:25

Don't take it too personally - 'Journalists' are forever taking stuff from other sources and repackaging it.
It's pretty annoying that so many of them don't understand that "quotation marks" should be used to indicate a direct quote of something said or written. Not just student journalists but 'professionals' on (in my personal experience) local newspapers.

If it's enough of a big deal, threaten them with the law - but otherwise just live with it. I guess people reading Indymedia are mostly aware that mainstream media is full of made-up stuff (Private Eye is brilliant for giving specific examples) and come to IMCs for a refresing change.

bobby

Judge for yourself. Are they NUJ?

22.11.2003 17:59

Their article is at  http://www.oxfordstudent.com/2003-11-20/news/8 if people want to verify the claims. They do apparently misquote, and without attribution, and in likely violation of the copyright terms of this site. Fun.

I think if they're NUJ cardholders (probably via NUS), then you may be able to slap them with the code of conduct. See  http://www.nuj.org.uk/front/inner.php?docid=346 for details.

Sadly, most aren't and you have to chase them through the limited recourse you have with their publishers, unless they really go as far as defamation.

MJR

in defence of the OxStu

23.11.2003 11:28

replace 'relief' with 'relieved'? HOW DARE they publish such an inaccuracy! Here's a tip for the future - sometimes the only way to make sure the media publish only the truth is TO TELL THEM WHAT IT IS. The article was trying to support your cause anyway.

Anyway, Indymedia rip off material from Oxstu: the interview with the Prince of Bhutan which was 'exclusive' to IndyMedia was actually done by Jools Malde, Dep News Ed of the OxStu, exclusively for the OxStu, and would not have been available for use by any other media without a guarantee of a mention of the OxStu.
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/oxford/2003/11/280292.html
 http://www.oxfordstudent.com/2003-11-06/focus/1

fair's fair in journalism.

ex journalist scum

consistent errors even when sent press releases

23.11.2003 16:18

I do recognise that both the Oxstu and Cherwell (and even local media) often try to write supporting articles. However knowing the person who started this stream I think the criticism is justified.

Every article about this cases has been consistantly inaccurate. The same goes for my past experience. Even when we sent press releases about OSSTW, essentially writing the article for them the articles were often incorrect. I didn't moan then because they were often positive articles but with this court case the facts are a lot more serious than just misunderstanding a demo or action.

anyway this is not a big attack simply a request to be more careful and actually check facts!

a harmless example: The die-in on wednesday was organised by an "iffinity group from Oxford Students Activist Network," not Oxford Students Activist Network itself (as it is a space open to everyone not a body that can have opinions or organise events.) and certainly not by "Oxford Stop the War Coalition" (had nothing to do with organising it) as was stated in the student press.

Regularly quoted in Both Oxstu and Cherwell

How does that defend the OxStu?

24.11.2003 11:39

I think our scum friend is confused. Journalists are supposed to note when they rewrite quotes, even if it's trivial. Being able to work accurate quotes into articles is a skill that student journalists need to develop. I agree that this case wasn't serious, even though it shows a lack of skill at OxStu. I don't think the article was very supportive, though.

The other confused thing is that the interview he refers to was described as exclusive to Anjool Malde, not to Indymedia, and it was apparently posted by them. Not a case of ripping off at all. Unless you know different?

MJR

errors much bigger

24.11.2003 18:40

Replacing 'a big relief' with 'very relieved' was the most trivial tip of the iceberg
as far as the innaccuracies go. Refusing to speak to the press does *not* give them the
right to print chinese whispers.

me

tell them

24.11.2003 22:58

This is clearly very annoying but unless you actually tell them about it then this conversation is trivial.

Bitching on indymedia which I'm sad to say they probably don't read is not the solution.

please

update

26.11.2003 23:58

I've just sent them a short letter asking them to acknowledge the source of the quote, and also to acknowledge anything else they get from indymedia in future, which I think is fair enough.

Although unfortunately, it's probably by now too late for this weeks deadline.

owen

in defence

01.12.2003 02:03

perhaps someone was trying to defend your case whilst trying to seem neutral. maybe you appreciate it's difficult to support the anti war cause while writing for a maintstream student paper. maybe the person in question was trying to get as much support for your honourable actions without seeming like the lefty stooge that he is to the rest of the student population. think on.

pf
mail e-mail: someone@keb.ox.ac.uk

...

01.12.2003 11:10

...and at least we didn't use the 4am working headline "English Sentenced"...!

Me

in that case...

01.12.2003 19:23

...it just illustrates the limitations of working within the mainstream media, as opposed to letting people tell their own stories. And I'm still not sure it excuses such huge innaccuracies.

owen

again

02.12.2003 22:20

apologies for the misquote, it was a genuine error, nothing more sinister. I do think thsat "huge innaccuracies" is a bridge too far though...

more scum

well...

18.12.2003 22:04

If you compare the OxStu's version of the facts of the case with the other versions here:

 http://bristol.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=9575

...you'll probably see what I mean by 'huge innaccuracies'.

owen

again

22.12.2003 01:15

to be fair, all the press cuttings show no factual differences to the Oxstu account. The only passage on that page with differing facts is the blurb at the top, around the picture, which, I'm sure any objective observer would note, is not entirely balanced.

me