“Newspaper ethics tend to do better about direct ripping off the competition,” Buttry writes. “Plagiarism is a career capital offense, so if we can’t advance a story or find the same sources to duplicate it, we reluctantly attribute.”

Buttry’s post is frank and honest, but he left one option off his list of common newspaper practices: skipping over a story entirely if there’s no way to write it without crediting another news organization.  That’s a pretty common one, too.

It may be true that in the world of traditional journalism, newspapers are better at citing original source material than broadcast media, but in my experience, most of them are bound by an arcane set of rules designed more to promote their commercial interests than to pursue the truth or inform their audience.

The news business is becoming less and less profitable all the time.  If there were any actual commercial benefit to avoiding citations of other news outlets, I would have a hard time faulting anyone for it.  But what good do they derive from it?

When the Des Moines Register cites the Cedar Rapids Gazette in print, do they lose subscribers?  Advertisers?  The two newspapers serve two distinct media markets, more than a hundred miles apart.

What if local TV newscasts cited the Register each time they cribbed a newspaper story?  They might sound funny having to cite the same source for nine out of the ten stories they feature, but it is unlikely that businesses are going to stop running television ads in favor of print ads, or that somebody will turn off the tube and curl up with a day-old copy of the newspaper to get their news.

I could ask the same hypothetical questions about whether there are legitimate reasons to avoid crediting nonprofit, online-only news outlets that regularly break news stories, but I’m done tilting at windmills for the day.

The Iowa Independent has been credited in print and on the airwaves by the Washington Post, the BBC, National Public Radio, and FoxNews (just to name a few), but to the best of my recollection, our name has never been uttered in the pages of the Register or in any local TV newscast.  If we ever do get local publicity (for which we are sincerely grateful), it is usually in the form of a novelty story about this new hobby called “blogging” — nothing that actually validates our work as journalists.

After a year and a half editing this site, I’ve made my peace with how the world works.  I can see the Iowa Independent’s footprint in the work of other local journalists even if casual readers, listeners, and viewers never will.

[Exclusive] Gov. Bill Richardson’s campaign is expected to direct its supporters to caucus for Sen. Barack Obama in the second round of voting at Thursday’s caucuses in precincts where he is not viable.  Two sources familiar with the plan told Iowa Independent that the New Mexico governor’s organizers have been instructed to direct supporters to Obama in the places where they have not reached the 15 percent threshold for viability.

Richardson, whose poll numbers in Iowa have hovered near 10 percent since June, may need a solid fourth-place finish in the caucuses to continue his campaign.  And he is best served by directing support away from former Sen. John Edwards, who consistently polls between him and the two national front-runners, Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton, in national and early state polls.

But Richardson’s modest gains from diverting second-choice support away from Edwards may be eclipsed by Obama’s potential success on caucus night, should everything go as planned.  If Richardson’s field organization manages to direct a significant number of supporters to Obama, it could be enough to win him the Iowa caucuses.

And if Edwards loses a large block of second-round voters, a group he seems to be relying on to break in his direction, it could irreparably damage his campaign.

Richardson would prefer an Obama victory over Clinton because a Clinton victory could end the campaign before New Hampshire voters even head to the polls.  And if Edwards’s numbers look weak, Richardson could head to New Hampshire as the best alternative to the top two contenders for the Democratic nomination.

Still, sources caution that plans can always change, and once the doors lock Thursday evening, anything can happen.  Whether the Richardson campaign’s strategy is implemented on the ground remains an open question and, because this directive is not expected to be confirmed publicly, it will be difficult to prove.[Ed. note: For about ten minutes when this story was first published, it asserted that there was a mutual agreement between the Richardson and Obama campaigns to swap supporters in precincts where one was not viable.  This, it turns out, resulted from a misunderstanding that has since been cleared up.  There is no deal between the two campaigns; there is only a strategic decision -- one which makes complete sense -- on the part of the Richardson campaign about where to direct its supporters if their group is not viable in certain precincts.]

Update: Joaquin Guerra, Richardson’s national Online Director, denies that any plans are in place to direct supporters to Obama on the second round of voting.  Still, our sources remain sure of what they told us, and we are confident that they do not carry ulterior motives that would cause them to lie.

“There is a smaller policy that goes to you that is for 100,000. That is for you to raise Kayla with and 25,000 of that goes to the barn.”

To help assure these wishes, Jaenka designated her mother the beneficiary of the death benefit on her official paperwork. Unfortunately, federal law only allows a spouse or child to be named the beneficiary, and the money for the latter is to be kept in a trust until the beneficiary turns 18. “I saw the paperwork. Jaime had put her mom’s name in the beneficiary box, but in the fine print it says that only a spouse or child may be listed as a beneficiary,” said Patrick Palmersheim, executive director of the Iowa Department of Veterans Affairs.

Since Jaime Jaenke’s death, her parents have been left with the task of raising her 10-year-old daughter, Kayla, without any additional income. Jaime’s military paychecks were not only used to help cover Kayla’s living expenses, but also were used to help her struggling family make ends meet. Susan Jaenke took her case to Washington, D.C., and told a House Veterans Affairs subcommittee that the loss of income had imposed an economic hardship on the Jaenke family.On behalf of all the Iowa Congressional delegation, Rep. Tom Latham introduced a bill (H.R. 1115 ) in February that would amend the United States Code. It would provide additional options regarding the designation of the death gratuity paid to members of the Armed Forces who die without a surviving spouse but are survived by a minor child. As of now, there are 142 cases similar to Jaime Jaenke’s. Latham, R-4th District, included a “look back” provision in the bill called “Treatment of Earlier Deaths and Death Gratuity Payments,” which would cover members who “left a clear expression of intent regarding payment of the death gratuity to another person on behalf of the surviving child or children.” Based on the letter to her mother and the original paperwork, Latham’s staff and Palmersheim agree that the Jaenkes have a solid case proving her intent. But this remains a moot point until the law is amended.

To help speed up the bureaucratic process, Latham attempted to add the bill as an amendment to a Defense Authorization Act, but the amendment died in the House Rules Committee, where members last week voted along party lines to reject the amendment 9-4 along with a number of others. Latham’s press secretary, James Christiansen, said he has no idea why the amendment died in committee, given that it seemed bipartisan and neutral in nature. “You’ll have to ask the Democrat majority of the Rules Committee, who unanimously voted against the amendment. Did they see the big `R’ behind Latham’s name and dismiss the nonpartisan amendment? This committee has a lot of power in deciding what amendments move on to the House floor.”

Despite the setback, Latham and his staff are optimistic about the bill and intend to move forward on behalf of their constituents, the Jaenke family. “The amendment may be dead, but the bill is still alive,” said Christiansen. “We’ve been working with the House Majority Leader, Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., who is trying to help push the bill into law, and we’ve received support in the Senate by members who plan on introducing a similar bill.”

Until then, the Jaenkes are left in the balance, where they are left waiting for the political process to take its course. For now, single parents currently serving active duty in the Armed Forces have only two options regarding their death benefit gratuity, and cases like the Jaenkes are bound to happen again. “The problem will continue unless it is fixed,” said Palmersheim.