Follow LA Observed on Twitter here
Mickey Kaus is shocked that New York Times reporters use material from stringers and interns, but he shouldn't be. I don't mean that as a knock at the NYT (or the LAT, which does the same -- usually credited, but not always). Datelines and bylines don't mean what they used to in the teletype days. These days. a story is not always or even usually the sole work of the journalist or two whose names are at the top. That's a good thing. Other reporters plus researchers, librarians, stringers and even interns back in the newsroom might contribute notes, quotes, scenes, Nexis background, whole paragraphs of copy. You can reach and include more sources that way, with collaborators working the phones, e-mail and the Internet. When done right it allows a more detailed and thorough brand of reporting than the lone intrepid correspondent on the ground. It makes journalism better, not worse.
Yet no paper or newsmagazine names all these contributors. Nor should they. On the occasions when we tried to at the LAT, the 40 or 50 names in a text box on a huge story (earthquake, riot, war) looked ridiculous and the public didn't give a whit. Even five names take up space and is more than most people want to know. Then there are the line editors. Their shaping influence on a story can be huge, pro or con, yet almost no paper or magazine lists them. [Ed. note:Who whips Kaus' copy into shape? Can they do something about his Kurtz and w-e-l-f-a-r-e fixations?]
Datelines pose other conundrums. Let's say you have multiple reporters out in the field on a tornado story, gathering facts in a half dozen towns. Everybody is filing notes. Is it misleading to use the biggest or most telling town as the dateline, even if the reporter tapped to write was focused elsewhere? No matter which you choose, the story may not be literally filed from there -- it's being written wherever there is a computer with a phone line, or back in the newsroom so that the material from Nexis and AP and phone calls doesn't have to be shipped out to the field on deadline. Consider also the notorious Hollywood dateline. What tiny percentage of stories (including in the NYT, Wash Post, even AP) are actually filed from Hollywood? Luckily the LAT dodges that issue by not using local datelines.
It appears (so far) that Bragg visited his dateline town and did some reporting there. He should have credited the intern, but that's a NYT policy choice how to signal that non-staffers contributed. At the LAT, the "Special to the Times" byline is the tipoff that one of the bylines is a freelancer, though I doubt many readers get the distinction.