So a few weeks ago a Washington Post reporter named Ian Shapira who had written an entertaining trend story got mad because Gawker went ahead and excerpted the best pieces of his work leaving little reason to click through to the story itself. It’s understandable why the reporter was upset, he felt like he was ripped off after all the work he had done on the story, and he concluded with this:

After talking with Denton, Nolan and others for this article, I still want a fluid blogosphere, but one where aggregators — newspapers included — are more transparent about whom they’re heavily excerpting. They should mention the original source immediately. And if bloggers want to excerpt at length, a fee would be the nice, ethical gesture.

So, Gawker, do me a favor. At least blog this piece. I’ll even write a headline for you (free of charge). How about: “Whiny WashPost Reporter Makes His Point: Respect the Genuine Article”? Oh — one other thing. If you sell ads against your posting, can you cut The Post a check?

In June, Spencer Ackerman broke this story on the creation of interagency teams to interrogate high value terror detainees:

The task force charged with fleshing out President Obama’s ban on torture in interrogations is likely to recommend the creation of small, mixed-agency teams for interviewing the most important terrorist targets. Representing an implicit demotion of the CIA, which currently has responsibility for interrogating high-level terrorists, the teams would report jointly to the attorney general and the director of national intelligence, according to officials familiar with the proposal.

Today, the Washington Post broke…pretty much the same story, several months later:

Obama signed off late last week on the unit, named the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, or HIG. Made up of experts from several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, the interrogation unit will be housed at the FBI but will be overseen by the National Security Council — shifting the center of gravity away from the CIA and giving the White House direct oversight.

I’m not sure whether Ann Kornblut relied at all on Spencer’s reporting, but he certainly broke the story first, and therefore deserves attribution. So, will the WaPo be sending Spencer a check or at least mentioning his name, as per the advice of Ian Shapira? This isn’t exactly a quirky story about “business coaches.” Or is crediting a “blogger” too embarrassing?

— A. Serwer