My comment yesterday at the blog formerly known as Romenesko:

Poynter's loss.

I read Romenesko for many years, appreciated his links to my work, and never had any trouble doping out who wrote what.

Moos writes that "many readers and sources understood Jim’s intent to credit properly and felt fairly treated by him." A gift for understatement, she has.

A post recommended by Romenesko himself, and a longer take on ethics and standards.

If Moos had a problem with Romenesko's style of attribution, fair enough -- but how is it that she only now noticed it? And why go nuclear instead of just saying she'd asked him to change his style for the sake of clarity?

I'll be keeping the link in my righthand column to Romenesko, but not to the media blog at Poynter.

Comments

[Mel]

This provides some answers: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/jim-romeneskos-resignation-and-a-scooped-reporter/2011/11/10/gIQADyA59M_blog.html

[Ed Cone]

Doesn't explain why it took questions from a third party to alert Moos to the style Romenesko had used for years.

Salmon's take on (linked above) on the petty bureaucratic mindset fits better.

There's speculation that Poynter was trying to take down R's rep as he headed out the door, but I doubt they're so evil.

[Lex]

The Poynter folks have always been aware they live in a glass house; this time they erred on the side of overreaction.

I kinda wish Penn State had done the same.

[Andrew Brod]

From my dad, a retired journalism professor:

"I was puzzled by the Moos post. I've never had any trouble knowing exactly what Romenesko's sources are, and there is always a link (or more) to the original material."