Primary sources are better, but with deadline pressure, sometimes the secondary source is what you have. The slogan in journalism being "Go with what you got." But I agree with Brad that it is better, then, to say "X,quoted by Y in." But editors often hate any inline citation in articles.
In our Z Magazine workshops for lefty journalists, Holly Sklar and I argue that fighting for inline citation in articles is important for 3 reasons:
1) It's the ethical thing to do. 2) It rebuts the guru syndrome whereby famous writers imply they are omniscient. 3) It increases the diversity of voices in public discourse.
-Chip Berlet
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Kelley
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 11:34 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com; lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: Alexander Cockburn on Daniel Pearl
>
>
> At 08:14 AM 2/27/02 -0800, Bradford DeLong wrote:
>
> >>Guess it's easier than looking up the original article!
> >>
> >>Doug
> >
> >For some reason it seems to be globally uncool to
> acknowledge multiple
> >level references. I've had editors take some of my
> references like "X,
> >quoted by Y in" and turn them into simply "X"...
>
>
> i don't think that was the point. if cockburn was so "ace" he
> would have
> spent the time to get Pearl's work and read it himself.
>
> it's globally uncool because it reveals an author's laziness in
many
> cases--perhaps not yours, but in this case it seems pretty
> obvious that
> Cockburn just ripped off someone else's footwork.
>
>
> kelley
>