Two days ago, the Independent (newspaper) broke a huge story in a triple page spread about a number of resturaunts and eateries denying their staff a basic wage by using the "tip" system to bolster their pay packet.
This morning the BBC's, Today programme, revealed what sounded like an exclusive. The report, a look at the Hard Rock Cafe's tipping/basic pay to staff.
Could well be.
However as a former broadcaster, I can see how I'd have picked up the Indies Report and attempt to deliver the equivalent broadcast package and I'd most likely not refer to the paper, unless that is I couldn't stand up the report.
But in today's social media 2.0 climate should an outfit refer to another if it's been the source of its report i.e. attribution?
In many cases news producers do, at times they don't and it was this coupled with the BBC's move to very local news coverage (which has been given the green light recently) that prompted UK regional newspapers to pick up video journalism.
Why wait for the broadcaster, any broadcaster to turn around your exclusive, when you can do it yourself?
So should the Indie take some credit and does it matter whether it's a public service body or commercial outfit in competition.
The Indie by the way doesn't do video journalism at the moment, otherwise their expose would also have made for a strong broadcast package
Online, a link to and reference of the Indie's piece adds value to the host as well as the recipient.
But the broadcast environment do old habits prevail?
If it is plaintively obvious, but can't be proved, should there be a code of ethics for digital piggybacking ?
Incidentally, in my own digital piggybacking of a BBC programme, 'The Trouble with Black Men' I stated from the start how I produced my report.
But then again I had less to lose.
I'll post a video of a report from the Telegraph's head of multimedia, which should prove interesting and perhaps shed some light on an old practice in today's media.