Exposing Plagiarism/Fabrication

I know there will always be office politics involved, but geez -- anyone, especially a "prominent columnist," who completely fabricates a quote from an invented person -- how does that reporter not get fired? It's insane, goes against everything journalism's supposed to be about.

But it's been going on forever, I'm sure. Depressing.

 

There are some places, too, where firing is not as easy as saying, "You're fired."

 

You have to figure that for every time there is something that makes people suspect that something was up, there are probably countless times when nobody notices anything.

I would seriously doubt this would be something that someone just does once or twice.

 

At a previous shop, I was running the sports desk and some of my co-workers whispered how two of our staffers were plagiarists and who had been caught twice, but nothing had been done. I guess, in my youthful naivete, that I just didn't think anyone in the age of Google could get away with it. I went back in the archives from the previous year, before I got there, and I washed a couple of stories from them from Google.

The results made me red in the face with rage.

It didn't take long to find what they'd lifted, which was quite a lot. I confronted one of them and he said he got them from "pool quotes." I went back into the team's web archives and found none of the quotes in question in the team's dispersed pool quotes. He had no answer for that. I went to the higher-ups and they asked me to let it go.

It's disgusting. It's lazy. And it's dishonest. I hate it at every possible level. Sure, my story sometimes might have a couple of boring quotes, but I got those honestly.

It fools the reader and it's a lie that threatens the most precious thing we have, credibility. Anyone who does this should be keel-hauled and forced to take a bath in rubbing alcohol.

 

My place doesn't want anyone raising issues or concerns.
I guess that makes for a happier workplace. Or something like that.

Fine by me. Garbage In, Garbage Out. You get what you pay for now. :-\

p.s. See you on Romenesko ...

 

I worked at a place where three guys were busted for plagiarism in about a two-year span. One was a GA guy and he has never worked in the business again. The other two were big shots and one was suspended for a few weeks but it was announced as a "vacation" We even ran something in the paper that said he was on vacation. The other threatened to quit if he was suspended and they didn't do anything to him.

The same place had an additional writer who was called at home by a desker who said, "I read your column and deleted it. I highly suggest you write it again and re-file it. Do we understand each other?"

The writer filed a completely new column. The previous one was 75 percent plagiarized. That desker was recently bounced in a round of layoffs, but the writer is still there...

 

I'm sure everyone has their own opinion, but for me it is much bigger than 50% plus 1. I think of most as something around 70 percent or greater, and I think that would be a more common standard.

 

You think 50 percent of writers have plagiarized or fabricated a story or a quote? Way too high... I think 10 percent is probably more realistic and that is still stunningly high...

 

I think with the majority of us, it's something that never even crosses our mind to do...

I think the biggest culprits are columnists. Of course, it's also easy to say that the columnists who are the most read are the ones who are the most likely to be caught.

I know allegations were raised awhile back that someone at SI was doing it and that was never pursued.

Plagiarism changed so much after the Jayson Blair scandal. I know of a couple writers who were fired for plagiarism over notes columns because notes sharing was deemed OK for a long time at most places and then suddenly, it wasn't.

Hell, the guy I replaced as the national/NFL features writer at my last stop was fired for that exact reason.

There was a NBA writer who completely botched a note over a trade rumor back in the late 1990s. The guy said he just had a brain fart and typed one guy's name in when it should have been someone else's. That mistake ran in 15 newspapers that Sunday and when it came out nationally, the wrong paper was initially blamed for the error...

 

(I think) he meant that 21's statement that "most journalists" don't plagiarize or fabricate would mean a number greater than 50% +1 do not plagiarize or fabricate. He thinks "most" would indicate a percentage closer to 70%.

And, that's fine.

But, let's say the number is 10%. Is that an outrageous claim? It would still mean that "most" do not plagiarize or fabricate, but it would be a huge number in my mind. Is it that high? Would it surprise anyone if it was?

And, I have a hard time believing the offenders only do it on occasion. Most of the cases that have been thoroughly investigated have found repeated violations.

If the number is 10%, that's a serious problem. And, the anecdotal evidence of non-enforcement on this thread are not reassuring.

Harsh penalties are what is necessary to prevent this behavior, but it doesn't sound like many are willing mete out such sanctions.

Why?

 

Because it makes management look bad. And the institution. That's the rationale.

 

I think they do, whether conscious or not.