This Toronto Star has a February 11, 2018 article's topic from Sabrina Nanji ("How Ontario Tory leadership front-runners took a 'shortcut' to the political stage") should sound very familiar. That's because I had written about the same topic on February 6, 2018. ("What do you need to be the leader of the Ontario PC Party? First degree relatives who held positions of power in the government: how journalistic narratives gloss over rigs).
I wrote my piece right here five days before.
And no, there is no acknowledgement of my writing in the Star article.
Coincidence? If it happened on the same day, yes. But five days ago? By then you are scouring online (obviously done if you have a laundry list of political "dynasties"); and if the idea has come up before - and it did come up before), you have to either acknowledge it, or find something else to write about. There is no excuse in 2018 for this kind of behaviour.
Even if there has been a group of people writing a similar topic from a similar angle, you still have to acknowledge the collective sentiment. Reporters have no problem showing similar-themed Twitter posts, giving credit to those posters; so they actually know how to do this whole attribution thing.
But not when it comes to more substantial pieces, where you can get credit for sounding smart and original without having to be either.
Shame on the Toronto Star for it. Come up with your own ideas. I am out here in the wilderness all on my own without a single person, organization, or government handout giving me any sort of assistance, and I come up with my own ideas and research daily.