This has been updated to add a response from NPR at the end.
Jay Rosen does an excellent job of parsing NPR’s comical gymnastics to avoid using the P-word in its reporting on Melania Trump’s plagiarism last week.
I won’t go into the detail that Jay did, but I recommend reading Jay’s post. I’ll concentrate on one point: whether plagiarism must be intentional, as NPR reporter Sarah McCammon argued:
@Shoq@jayrosen_nyu Plagiarism has technical meaning that includes intent. I trust my audience to make up minds based on facts I lay out.
— Sarah McCammon NPR (@sarahmccammon) July 20, 2016
McCammon also argued that professional journalism standards are somehow different from academic standards:
@Shoq@jayrosen_nyu 2) everything.. I take most of my cues from journalists who have years of experience covering politics, not academics.
— Sarah McCammon NPR (@sarahmccammon) July 20, 2016
I don’t know where McCammon learned ethics, but she couldn’t be more wrong. I’ve spent decades longer in journalism than in academia, and I never recall a newsroom where intent mattered one whit. If you stole someone else’s material, that was plagiarism, period.
Here’s one remarkably consistent fact about plagiarism: The first explanation (and often the only explanation, regardless of how compelling the evidence) for plagiarism is always sloppiness (the same explanation Meredith McIver gave in taking the blame for the Melania Trump theft of Michelle Obama’s words). I can’t remember anyone ever admitting intentional plagiarism.
Unless someone is foolish enough to write an email about his or her plan to plagiarize (I’m not aware of that ever happening), you can never prove intent in a plagiarism case. You can prove that it happened a lot, and that kind of shuts up the protests about sloppiness, but seldom brings an admission of intent.
As I wrote in a 2011 blog post (when I was working as an editor for a company with 75-plus newsrooms):
Sloppiness is no excuse for plagiarism. If it was ever a valid excuse, its value evaporated after the first few journalists who used it turned out to be serial plagiarists.
When the charge is plagiarism, sloppiness is a guilty plea, not an alibi.
Of course, a political speech is not an act of journalism. It actually has some of the essence of plagiarism (taking credit for someone else’s work) baked into the process: A speech writer such as McIver writes words for which a speaker such as Melania Trump will receive the credit or blame.
If speech writing has a code of ethics, I’m not aware of it and Google didn’t serve it up for me. But history has shown that politicians whose speech writers steal parts of others’ speeches are busted for plagiarism. It’s not quite the career-killer for politicians that it can be for journalists (Barack Obama and Joe Biden both have been caught plagiarizing, and the matter helped derail Biden’s first run for the presidency). But stealing someone else’s words in any context is plagiarism, and NPR is foolish to split hairs over intent, and undermines its own journalistic credibility.
First-degree murder requires intent. But there’s only one degree of plagiarism in my book. If you used someone else’s word without credit, you’re responsible. Intent, if it could be proven, is just a detail. You can be a deliberate plagiarist or a sloppy plagiarist, but you’re a plagiarist.
Update: I just found a fascinating tidbit: You know who agrees with Jay and me that intent is irrelevant to plagiarism? NPR.
Last October, NPR used a form of the word plagiarism five times, including the headline, in a story about NPR music stories that used material from other sources without credit.
In that case, the writer, Brian Wise, admitted the offense, but not the intent:
NPR and WQXR have identified some sentences and phrases in my work that were similar to those used in other media outlets. They are right. These unintentional lapses are entirely my fault. I did not live up to my high standards or those of NPR and WQXR. I sincerely apologize for this.
The NPR story quotes executives at the network and station level emphatically condemning the plagiarism, with no parsing about intent:
‘NPR’s policy is clear: plagiarism is unacceptable,’ says a statement from Mike Oreskes, NPR’s senior vice president for news, and Graham Parker, the general manager of WQXR. ‘Likewise, New York Public Radio’s policy is indisputable: “Plagiarism is an unforgivable offense. NYPR staff members do not take other people’s work and present it as our own.”‘
I messaged McCammon on Twitter and she deferred questions to NPR editors. I have messaged Oreskes, seeking a response.
The NPR ethics code does mention intent in its definition of plagiarism, but note what is says immediately after the definition:
Plagiarism – taking someone else’s work and intentionally presenting it as if it is your own – is theft. At NPR it’s an unforgivable offense. But it’s not enough that we don’t intend to deceive our audience. Our standard is to make clear to our audience where the information we bring them comes from.
Another update: I’m chagrined that I didn’t think of this myself, but Dylan Smith just noted on Facebook that NPR was one of the participating organizations in Telling the Truth and Nothing But, a 2013 ebook produced by more than 30 different journalism organizations, institutions and companies to address plagiarism and fabrication.
The book says intent may be a factor in how an organization responds to an incident of plagiarism, but not in determining whether a journalist plagiarized:
It’s time to reject an all-too-common defense — ‘I didn’t mean it.’
I helped write the book and shouldn’t have needed Dylan’s help remembering NPR’s participation. But I guess, especially in this context, I have to credit him.
Response from NPR
McCammon referred me to Mark Memmott, NPR’s senior editor for standards and practices. Memmott sent this response by email this morning (July 26):
Thank you for getting in touch. I’ve learned over the years that too many reporters don’t bother with actually contacting all the people involved in the issues they’re covering. You’re setting a good example.
This is all on-the-record.
When we wrote our Ethics Handbook in 2012 we included this definition of plagiarism: ‘Taking someone else’s work and intentionally presenting it as if it is your own.’ We realized that wasn’t a strict ‘dictionary definition.’ But we included the word ‘intentionally’ for a very specific reason: to allow us to apply some judgment.
We were thinking about how we would react if a journalist who had never stolen from someone else’s work inadvertently left a line or phrase from another file in his or her copy. Did that person make a serious mistake? Yes. Does that person deserve to be labeled a ‘plagiarist’ and be disciplined or even fired? We wanted some flexibility to make an intelligent decision.
On the morning when I reminded the staff about our definition, the story about Melania Trump’s speech was developing. I was thinking that we should not rush to hold her to a different standard than we would hold ourselves.
You and others have said that no one will ever admit they intended to plagiarize. You may be right. But I would say that a confession isn’t necessary to determine intent. It’s not hard to tell the difference between a slip by someone who’s never been accused or convicted of plagiarism and a story that’s got several “lifts” from different sources. And if someone slips and is later caught again, I think intent has been proven by his actions.
You wrote that we’re guilty of ‘comical gymnastics.’ That’s a good line. I would hope, though, that you would give us some credit for trying to think things through. Have we overthought it? Perhaps. But I would say our intentions are good.
One more thing. Sarah McCammon is a good journalist who was applying the guidance she was given by her editors. If there’s a problem, it’s because of her editors (most notably me), not her.
Thanks for your time.
Mark Memmott
Thanks for the response, Mark. I do think NPR has overthought this. I don’t care to distinguish between sloppy plagiarism or dishonest plagiarism. I wouldn’t want a journalist or speech writer who committed either offense working for me. And both are plagiarism.
Some Twitter reaction
This post has generated some discussion on Twitter:
@jayrosen_nyu @stevebuttry @sarahcuda It’s like these people never went to college.
— Steve Paulo (@StevePaulo) July 25, 2016
@schlockdaddy @jayrosen_nyu Certainly matters less. Journo or scholar is fired or expelled. Political speaker just embarrassed.
— Steve Buttry (@stevebuttry) July 25, 2016
@JayFisher74 @jayrosen_nyu Plagiarism is a matter of ethics, not a crime. Intent & “knowingly” acting are relevant in many criminal laws.
— Steve Buttry (@stevebuttry) July 25, 2016
@jayrosen_nyu @stevebuttry incompetence or malice are the same thing
— Rob Leathern (@robleathern) July 25, 2016
@jayrosen_nyu @stevebuttry They admitted intent. MT gives quotes to writer. Writer uses quotes. MT practices and gives speech with quotes.
— rotophonic (@rotophonic) July 25, 2016
@jayrosen_nyu @stevebuttry Clearly Melania Trump knew the quotes since she originally provided them.
— rotophonic (@rotophonic) July 25, 2016
@jayrosen_nyu @stevebuttry The “Balance” fetish in journalism has created an environment in which obvious “facts” r now considered partisan.
— J M P (@2016JMP) July 25, 2016
[…] asked Memmott if he wanted to comment and he declined. But he did comment to Steve Buttry, director of student media at Louisiana State University’s Manship School of Mass […]
LikeLike
[…] and lose track of the attribution. It doesn’t matter. As journalism professor and ethicist Steve Buttry says, “I can’t remember anyone ever admitting intentional […]
LikeLike