This page is hosted on AFS file server space, which is being shut down on November 13, 2018. If you are seeing this message, your service provider needs to take steps now. Visit afs.unc.edu for more information.
 
New era brings new diligence on plagiarism
USA Today; Arlington; May 10, 1999; Philip Meyer; 

Abstract:
THE FORUM; Philip Meyer holds the Knight Chair in Journalism at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He is also a consultant for USA TODAY and member of the newspaper's board of contributors.

Today, the SPJ code warns: "Never plagiarize." But the definition of plagiarism is unstable. Stealing large blocks of text is clearly wrong. But what about stealing an idea, a joke or an anecdote?

An editorial writer for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch was publicly reprimanded by his editor last October for using a hoary medical anecdote without crediting The New York Times, where he found it the previous week. But did the Times own that anecdote?
 

Full Text:
Copyright USA Today Information Network May 10, 1999
 
THE FORUM; Philip Meyer holds the Knight Chair in Journalism at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He is also a consultant for USA TODAY and member of the newspaper's board of contributors.

Journalism standards are changing -- and not always toward recklessness. Here is one that's getting tighter.

From 1927, when it first adopted a code of ethics, until 1984, the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) had no written rule against plagiarism.

C.D. MacDougall, whose 1938 book Interpretative Reporting was once the standard text, advised concealing the source of rewritten material in order to make it seem original.

Newspapers don't steal important stories without verifying, he said, but they "do borrow for rewriting purposes and often without waiting to verify minor items."

Today, the SPJ code warns: "Never plagiarize." But the definition of plagiarism is unstable. Stealing large blocks of text is clearly wrong. But what about stealing an idea, a joke or an anecdote?

Recent cases show that any of these can get a writer into trouble.

An editorial writer for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch was publicly reprimanded by his editor last October for using a hoary medical anecdote without crediting The New York Times, where he found it the previous week. But did the Times own that anecdote?

Times contract writer Sandra Blakeslee had led her report on the placebo effect in medicine with the case that was "known to many doctors." It described a patient at the Long Beach, Calif., Veterans Administration hospital, whose cancer symptoms disappeared after administration of a placebo. The only source named was "Dr. Philip West." He died in 1966.

The same anecdote had appeared three years earlier in the 1995 book Remarkable Recovery by Caryle Hirshberg and Marc Ian Barasch. As their source, they cited Bruno Klopfer's 1957 presidential address to the Society for Projective Techniques in New York City. Blakeslee says she used the same source.

The speech quoted part of a personal letter from West describing the case. It sounded less like clinical documentation than a dramatic tale, e.g. "the tumor masses had melted like snow balls on a hot stove."

The St. Louis writer took no large blocks of text from Blakeslee, although he did appropriate her punch line to describe what happened when the patient lost faith in his placebo: "He died two days later."

Five words stolen. The rest was use of the idea and an anecdote so old and widely circulated as to be in the public domain.

More recent evidence of the change in standards since MacDougall comes from a case in which a young writer for CNN's on-line financial service took an idea from the Dec. 15, 1998 Wall Street Journal. She stole no blocks of text, but she did use Jonathan Clements' idea and his structure while adding some new information and fresh figures of speech.

For example, Clements used an automobile metaphor to describe his proposed steps for new investors: "Get out the map. Start your engines. Accelerate slowly. Hit the gas." The CNN writer invented a parallel swimming metaphor: "Gauge the depth. Dip your toes in. One limb at a time. Take the plunge."

She was fired.

Another standard applied when The Wall Street Journal was the perpetrator. Writer Daniel Costello had compiled an appealing list of food festivals across the USA.

Some of the material was similar to listings in Barbara Carlson's 1997 book Food Festivals: Eating Your Way from Coast to Coast. Here is an example.

Costello: "Although Georgia now ranks third in peach production (behind California and South Carolina), it still holds on to the title of the 'Peach State.' "

Carlson: "Today, Georgia ranks third in peach production behind top-ranking California and South Carolina. But Georgia officials insist that peaches have long been synonymous with Georgia, and that Georgia still holds the title as the 'peach state.' "

Costello never cited Carlson, even though she had express-mailed a copy of the book at his request. When her publisher's publicist asked for a follow-up credit, she got a dismissive lawyer letter. Costello's penalty was a dart from Columbia Journalism Review.

Finally, there is the famous case of Mike Barnicle, the former Boston Globe columnist who lost his job over several issues, including stealing jokes from a book by comedian George Carlin. The borrowings were rewritten and cleaned up for a family newspaper.

Again, the problem was not stealing exact words, but idea and structure. Barnicle now writes for the New York Daily News.

One of the basic rules of fairness in our culture is that a person should not be punished for acts that were not against the law at the time they were committed. But morality is socially defined, society changes its mind, and we don't all learn about it at the same time.

Director-screenwriter James L. Brooks expressed it in a line for William Hurt, playing a reporter in the 1987 movie Broadcast News. Accused of crossing an ethical line, Hurt says, "It's hard not to cross it. They keep moving that little sucker, don't they."

In MacDougall's day, the line didn't move much. Information was scarce, and recycling maximized its use. Today, originality is more important.

And plagiarism is easier to spot.

Similarities in the work of different authors get caught because technology helps information break out of once-closed networks. People with an interest in a narrow topic are seldom content with a single source. They use the Internet to search and compare.

So how should we journalists protect ourselves from charges of plagiarism? We should think of everything we write as part of a hypertext network and reveal the connections. Name sources with enough detail so that readers can find them. Use print titles and Internet addresses liberally.

Multiple and explicit sourcing is not merely honest. It's a friendly bow to the way consumers use their information media today.

[Illustration]
GRAPHIC,b/w,Sam Ward,USA TODAY(Illustration)

 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.