* Chile Supreme Court tells newspaper to pay $125K to 13 people burned while trying faulty churros recipe
* NYT sells 16 regional papers to Halifax for $143M | Earlier: Halifax jumps the gun
* California Bar should be so lucky as to have Stephen Glass as a member, says Joe Nocera
* NYT promotes longtime design director Tom Bodkin to deputy managing editor
* Newseum parent Freedom Forum cuts expenses, but still reports $59 million deficit

Does your news organization credit YouTube or the video creator?

A Twin Cities journalist who asked not to be named sends this email:

The Minneapolis Star Tribune did something that is one of my biggest pet peeves in the journalism world. Up here yesterday, we had a 200-person brawl at Mall of America. Being 2011, someone took video of the melee on their phone. And being 2011, someone posted it to YouTube. The Star-Tribune posted it to their site, but instead of embedding the video via YouTube, they imported it into their own player. One can only assume this was to put ads in front of it. I think that’s tacky, but not terribly so.

But where they really screwed up, in my sometimes-humble opinion, is they credited the video to “YouTube,” rather than to the creator of the video. I think that’s analogous to the Star-Tribune being credited as “The paper.” I think a lot of journalists think anything that’s on YouTube or Flickr is their’s for the taking and there’s no need to credit the actual creator of the work. It smacks of that whole idea that anything on the Internet is fair to use. Ask Judith Griggs how that turned out for her!

I did some searching and found that most news outlets credited YouTube for their Mall melee images. The screenshot above — from Google Images — was also credited to YouTube.

I’ve invited the Star Tribune – check your email Stan Schmidt! – to respond.

UPDATE: Terry Sauer, Assistant Managing Editor/Digital, sends this response:

Regarding the YouTube videos on the Mall of America violence Monday, we probably could have crafted a tighter credit line, but the reasons behind going this route included our wanting to grab a compilation of more than one video since none on their own were all that great, being able to dub out the foul language and also not subject users to the racist comments on YouTube. In addition, crediting users on YouTube generally only yields an anonymous user name, and not their real name. I’ll also point out we do not have any preroll advertising on this video.

Hotelier Doug Manchester (left), who recently bought the San Diego Union-Tribune, tells his readers that “I pray that ownership of the U-T will provide me the opportunity to support our community, promote the economic strength of the region and improve the lives of all San Diegans.” He adds:

I take the stewardship of San Diego’s primary and most significant media very seriously. We will adhere to the highest standard of journalistic integrity and objectivity. We will do our part to be a positive force in our diverse community as we create a superior newspaper and a complement of digital information sources.

Manchester wishes San Diego residents a merry Christmas and prosperous new year, but they aren’t able to return good wishes because, oddly, “comments on this story are closed.” I’ve inquired why.

* Publisher’s note: A day to count blessings and share happiness

* Nov. 17: A newsmaker buys the local newspaper (Voice of San Diego)

UPDATE: Union-Tribune editor Jeff Light sends this email:

We turned off the comments on that piece because I didn’t like the way it was going. The publisher’s letter brought together his thoughts about San Diego and his new stewardship of the Union-Tribune with his personal feelings of faith on the occasion of a religious holiday. I think it was written from the heart, as a sincere message of good will.

In the early comments, you could tell that some people took it that way, and others did not. Soon there was a debate heating up about competing religious dogma, the historical accuracy of Catholic doctrine, and the virtues of the writer.

I thought all of that was way off base. My reaction was, hey, it’s Christmas, let it go. Someone tried, in their own way, to say something nice, and now we’re headed for acrimony and debate.

Not every utterance needs a response on every occasion.