Quote Originally Posted by Timshel View Post
Also, hardly a substantive point, but issue date and publish date are two different things. Neither you nor the Oklahoman made a false statement - just referring to two different things.
The Consent Order was issued and published on March 21st. The FDIC uploaded it to their site and issued a press release. The order is signed and dated. I have all this documented, I'm not just talking out of my arse.

And if the Oklahoman has records I'm not privy to, they should be cited in the article and they only mention things I had already specifically referenced. Considering they mention absolutely no new info in their article, I think it's safe to assume they didn't find anything new on their own. In fact, I can't even think of what 'record' would mention this and use that wording.


As how I am certain they are ripping off my work, they've been doing it for years. It's not a coincidence that they publish this story 2 days after mine while the most important information was in the public domain for months. Steve Lackmeyer admitted to this practice himself on OKCTalk when I called him out on it (concerning one of many other examples).

I have lots more info I'm not going to share; at least not yet.

I've worked on this since February. They clearly slapped together a quick story as soon as my article came out. That should be obvious and I'm not going to cite all the dozens of similar examples.

It is also standard journalism practice to cite when you 'follow' a news story by writing one of your own. You see this all the time in respectable news outlets and I've interviewed multiple journalism ethics experts who say it's clearly understood that when your report is completely prompted by the work of another, you cite them and give them credit. Something we do every single day here.