PLAGIARISM is depressingly common in journalism. A quick Internet search turns up stories and comments about cases at some of the most respected publications in the nation. People often say that in the Internet age, plagiarism is easier to commit, discover and do accidentally. Cut and paste some words into your notes, get in a hurry, forget to cite them and you have committed what some folks at the Poynter Institute called "unoriginal sin." It was called "a cardinal sin at any newspaper" in a Cavalier Daily editorial nearly eight years ago ("Policy on plagiarism," Nov. 5, 2003) when several pieces published in the Life section turned out to contain stolen content ranging from phrases to entire paragraphs.
Apparently, it has happened again. Cavalier Daily editors discovered that a story they were about to publish had used information without attribution. After some research, editors discovered they had printed at least three articles by the same writer that contained stolen material.
The managing board dismissed the writer, removed the plagiarized stories from the paper's website and reported the matter to the Honor Committee.
That was the right thing to do.
The board went further, printing an editorial ("Taking action," Sept. 12, 2011) explaining what happened, how the board responded and asking - though not in exactly these words - for readers' forgiveness. The most valuable thing any news organization has is its reputation. Stealing other people's work is a good way to build a reputation as a liar and a thief, but it is no way to preserve a reputation as a dependable source for news.
And that is one of the worst things about this kind of plagiarism. It tarnishes the reputation not only of the person who did it, but also the publication that printed it, as well as journalism in general. All a publication can do is clean up the mess and hope it has built up enough of a reserve of trust with its readers to overcome the damage.
There was a time when dismissal would have been the only thinkable response to plagiarism. There might be some attempt to distinguish criminality from stupid mistake, but if anyone intentionally stole from someone else's work, the thief was fired.
Washington Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton quoted the paper's code of standards and ethics in a column last March: "Plagiarism is one of journalism's unforgivable sins."
He wrote that in a column about a pair of plagiarized articles from Sari Horwitz. Horwitz was not a rookie who did something goofy. She had worked at the paper for more than a quarter-century and had contributed to work that won three Pulitzer Prizes when she lifted the work of an Arizona Republic reporter - twice in less than a week - in stories about Jared Lee Loughner, a man charged with shooting nearly 20 people, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, and killing six of them. A Post story about the plagiarism said, "Some news organizations, including The Post, have fired reporters for copying another journalist's work and presenting it as their own. 'For a long time, it was viewed as an excommunication sin, beyond mortal sin,' said Bob Steele, a professor of journalism ethics at DePauw University. 'But nowadays, editors try to look at the full context of what happened and why it happened' before rushing to punish. He added that digital technology and increased competition via the Internet make such errors of judgment more likely."
Other publications have suggested that managers may feel guilty about the added pressure they have helped create through the increasing demands they have put on the survivors left in shrinking newsrooms. Whatever the reason, Horwitz was suspended, but not fired. And yet, as Dennis Wagner, the reporter whose work Horwitz stole, told the Post's ombudsman, the damage was done. And it was done to more than Horwitz and the Post.
"It's bad because it undermines the credibility not just of The Washington Post but of journalists in general," Wagner said. "People think we take shortcuts and cheat, and it's hurtful to all of us."\nYes it is.
Clearly, The Cavalier Daily is not alone in having plagiarism appear in its pages. Its editors did, however, discover the problem themselves. It is more usual for an outside source to do that. The paper's managing board took action and explained what happened quickly and publicly.
It is a rotten situation, but The Cavalier Daily seems to have handled it just about as well as it could have been handled. Of course, ultimately, it is up to readers to decide if that is good enough.
Tim Thornton is the ombudsman for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at ombud@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 15 hours agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | YesterdayWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
PARTING SHOT: Asked and answered
By Honor Wood | YesterdayLooking back, the answer has been abundantly clear all along. I did it for the people.
