Tag Archives: New York Times

Plagiarism: A Renaissance for Attribution

Accuracy, Media, Online News, Plagiarism, Social Media, , , , , , , , ,
he Young St. John the Baptist
Piero di Cosimo, “Young St. John the Baptist” (Metropolitan Museum of Art)

When New York Times critic Carol Vogel previewed an artist’s retrospective, readers were quick to question her report.

By Stephen Rynkiewicz

Renaissance artists might have struggled with the idea of plagiarism. Florentine salons respected tradition and uniformity, and apprentices in Piero di Cosimo’s studio learned by imitating the master. National Gallery of Art curator Gretchen Hirschauer told New York Times critic Carol Vogel that Piero’s work entered American collections partly by accident. It was attributed to other artists.

But the concept of plagiarism has evolved. When Vogel previewed Hirschauer’s retrospective of Piero’s work, a few readers were quick to question her report. It started with a list of Piero’s peculiarities, citing contemporary Giorgio Vasari, who’s still studied in paperback. But the wording was close to an even more common source, Wikipedia. The print passage is shortened online, and ombudsman Margaret Sullivan suggests Times editors might take further steps if a pattern emerges.

The word plagiarism first appears during the Reformation. The Random House Dictionary defines it as “to use the words or ideas of another person as if they were your own words or ideas.” Universities have moved beyond the Renaissance academy, with rules against copying and paraphrasing. The Society of Professional Journalists ethics code simply says, “Never plagiarize.”

Yet the practice continues. Evidence of plagiarism in Sen. John Walsh’s Army War College research puts him under pressure to withdraw from the November election. Repeated instances on the website BuzzFeed got a producer fired last month. And delegates to SPJ’s 2014 convention will consider adding another ethics directive: “Always attribute.“

Continue reading Plagiarism: A Renaissance for Attribution →

Anon

Accountability, Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , ,

 

By Casey Bukro

 

Pssst! Hey buddy, over here. Got some really important news for you. Can’t tell you where I got it. But trust me.

That, in effect, is the con played often on the public by some of the nation’s leading newspapers, like the New York Times and the Washington Post. It’s called anonymity.

This con was neatly spelled out in a Reuters piece by Jack Shafer, who counted the number of times the Times offered corrections recently on stories based on anonymous sources, citing anonymous sources again to make the corrections.

That’s carrying the con a bit far.

Shafer traces the history of citing anonymous sources from a time when it was rare, to a time when it was rampant. It’s probably  fair to say that this journalistic disease is especially prevalent in Washington, involving government and political reporting.

Most reporters know that stories are only as good as the reliability of identified sources who are quoted.

“Anonymous sources reduce the pressure on official sources to take responsibility for their utterances,” writes Shafer. “And it promotes the gaming of news outlets, with anonymous sources gravitating to the most pliant reporters and editors.”

Weak or lazy scribes sometimes think they’re acting like “the big boys” by writing stories veiled in mystery, as though they know really important people who want to stay in the shadows. Sometimes these journalists know they are being used, but think that’s how the game is played. With more digging, they might find sources willing to be identified.

The Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics says “the public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability.” There are times when anonymity is warranted, such as protecting someone’s life or welfare.

Scholars believe the Washington Post’s Watergate coverage was the “watershed moment for anonymous reporting,” touching off a wave of imitators who lusted for the fame of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

Getting cozy with news sources is another way to play the game, as Bob Garfield, host of NPR’s “On the Media” program pointed out in his scathing commentary on the White House Correspondents Dinner in a piece entitled “When the Watchdogs Wear Tuxedos, Politicians Rest Easy.”

All of this leads to a point made by Thomas Baekdal, who investigated the meaning of quality journalism. He found that although some of the leading newspaper managers say they are doing a great job, they are losing readers.

It’s just possible that readers are disenchanted with journalism that depends on anonymous sources and making nice with news sources, like the White House correspondents dinner.  It’s journalism with a wink and a nod.

Readers know what’s going on there, and they’re turned off. They know they’re entitled to a better journalism, and better journalists.

 

The Times Telling Its Own Story

Accountability, Media, , , , , , ,

By Casey Bukro

The New York Times is a classic case of how poorly the media tell stories about themselves.

Times Publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. fired Jill Abramson as executive editor, touching off a storm of speculation over who did what to whom and why, and motivations behind the story that was told or not told.

Days after the dismissal, Sulzberger issued a statement complaining that “a shallow and factually incorrect storyline has emerged.”

One version of that storyline held that Abramson was sacked because of her complaints that her $525,000 salary was less than her predecessor’s, a man, setting up the argument that a woman was paid less than a man for the same job.

Another thread was Abramson’s management style, described as polarizing, non collegial, mercurial and pushy, traits that might be tolerated in a man but not in a woman.

“I decided that Jill could no longer remain as executive editor for reasons having nothing to do with pay or gender,” said Sulzberger’s statement, as he hoped to clear up the matter as it seemed to get murkier.

Hard-charging media organizations like the Times often demand full disclosure from the government agencies or corporations that stumble into controversial territory. But, when media get into trouble, they often get defensive, say they’ve been misunderstood or say it’s nobody else’s business.

The Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics says journalists should “abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.”

Another good guideline in a crisis is: Tell it all and tell it fast. That advice comes from Frank M. Corrado, a Chicago communications specialist.

Some observers say the New York Times affair has settled into “navel gazing by the media,” described as an occupational hazard. The writer of that sentiment wondered why Abramson was fired only nine days after the Times’s chief executive “gushed” about her.

A Vanity Fair report, including an interview with Sulzberger explaining his intentions, said “The New York Times is an institution whose employees are adept at, perhaps addicted to, in-house Kremlinology.” Even those closest to the story are wondering if they know the true story, or the whole story.

Women flocked to Abramson’s defense, but it was not universal.

Some of the more thoughtful and detailed information about the New York Times affair appears in The New Yorker, by Ken Auletta. He says:

“It is an affair in which neither side behaved well or with any finesse and the institution, which is so central to American journalism, suffered.”

 

 

 

 

Jayson Blair

Accountability, Accuracy, Fabrication, Plagiarism, Uncategorized, , , , ,

 

By Casey Bukro

Jayson Blair lied, plagiarized and fabricated stories, shaming the New York Times where he worked.

Why would he do that, knowing that the eyes of the world were focused on one of the world’s great newspapers?

Leonard Pitts Jr., a columnist for the Miami Herald, seemly comes as close as anyone to an answer in a recent column — Blair simply believed he’d never get caught.

It’s a myth, says Blair, that fear of being caught keeps people from doing unethical things. After getting away with it, “once you cross that barrier where you know the chances are you won’t be caught, it becomes very hard to discipline yourself,” Pitts quotes Blair.

It’s a fantasy. And that could be part of the answer.

Anyone in journalism who believes nobody really pays attention to accuracy and fairness is delusional.  The American Journalism Review, in writing about Blair, pointed to other journalists who met their downfalls through dishonesty. It’s usually a matter of time before the distortions that lying create are noticed.

Blair did leave a legacy of sorts.  Some journalists contend media are more concerned about fact-checking now. Maybe.

Recently, films and television broadcasts focused on Blair.

“A Fragile Trust: Plagiarism, Power and Jayson Blair at the New York Times” is a 75-minute documentary.

Blair had a record of poor work habits at the New York Times, which should have raised red  flags before it was too late to prevent what has been described as “one of the most notorious scandals in the history of American journalism.” Some heads rolled.

Now out of journalism,  Blair is described as a “life coach.”

This season of Blair mania comes while several journalism organizations are writing or rewriting codes of ethics, such as the Society of Professional Journalists. Such documents usually list activities that journalists should or should not do.

But rarely do they mention consequences for people like Jayson Blair, who believe there are no consequences for lying, cheating and stealing. They just cross the barrier and set the stage for another scandal.

 

 

Olympic Tears

Compassion, ,

By Casey Bukro

Olympic skier Bode Miller cried as NBC’s Christin Cooper interviewed him, asking him a string of questions about the influence Miller’s dead brother might have had on the skier’s bronze metal performance in the race he had just finished.

Midway through the interview, tears streaming down his face, stammering at times, Miller bowed his helmeted head and fell silent. Cooper placed a hand on Miller’s arm and said: “Sorry.”

The media and the world in general have come down hard on Cooper,  a former Olympic skier herself in the 1984 games, for “pushing too hard” in the Miller interview.

In the aftermath of this furor, Miller proved to be a class act. He tweeted, “please be gentle w christen cooper, it was crazy emotional and not at all her fault.” In another tweet, he said “she asked questions that every interviewer would have, pushing is part of it, she wasn’t trying to cause pain.”

Miller has a point. It is the nature of television to go for the visual and the emotional. Cooper noted that Miller looked to the sky moments before starting his medal-winning Alpine Super-G run, implying he might be thinking about his brother Chelone, who died at the age of 29 last year after suffering a seizure. Miller said later there was some truth to that.

Cooper is one of those attractive sport figures turned broadcasters. Without a background in professional journalism, there is reason to believe Cooper simply does not understand or did not have the depth of experience to learn how far to go. She is co-founder of a restaurant in Bozeman, Montana.

There are boundaries in good taste and ethics that professional journalists learn to recognize, or should learn to recognize.

At least credit Cooper for saying “sorry,” perhaps moved by seeing how emotionally distraught Miller became by her questions about Chelone.

Television puts attractive but nonprofessional commentators in sensitive situations at its own peril. That might be one of the lessons of the Sochi Olympics in Russia.

Although much of the criticism rained down on Cooper, nothing was said about the excessive time NBC’s camera followed Miller after he walked away from Cooper, then slumped down weeping against a low wall until his wife came to comfort him. It was too much.

The Cooper interview has been timed by the New York Times at 75 seconds. But the camera lingered on Miller far longer after he ended the interview by walking away.  At that point, the interview was over. Miller should have been left alone in his private grief, instead of being hounded by the camera.

Maybe it was NBC’s idea of good TV, but it was  a bad way to treat a human being.

A Squirmable Moment

Accuracy, Photos, , , , ,

By Casey Bukro

That squirmable moment comes when a journalist racing to get it fast, discovers that he got it wrong.

The stomach lurches, and if it’s bad enough, you might even throw up.

Think the Richard Jewell story. Or two innocent by-standers shown in a front-page photo as possible Boston Marathon bombing suspects. Or the man falsely identified as the Washington Navy Yard shooter because his identification card was found at the scene of 12 murders in Philadelphia.

“Verify before you villify,” says Ben L. Kaufman in CityBeat.Com, recalling the experience of Rollie Chance, mistakenly identified by NBC and CBS as the Navy Yard shooter. Chance said the falsehood took a toll on him.

At least Chance was cleared quickly, unlike the case of Richard Jewell. He was a security guard portrayed as an heroic first responder at the 1966 Olympic Park bombing which took one life and injured more then 100. Then Jewell became the bombing suspect and was identified, but not charged, in what had been described as a “media circus.”

Jewell was cleared by the federal government after nearly three months of coverage that often focused on him, his appearance, personality and his background. Almost a decade later, Eric Rudolph, a violent anti-abortionist, pleaded guilty to the bombing. Jewell died in 2007.

Looking back on that episode, a New York Times reporter, Kevin Sack, who covered the Atlanta bombing, told of his frustration when the Times executive editor at the time, Joseph Lelyveld, ruled against naming Jewell in the newspaper, while the Atlanta Journal and other media named him.

Later, the reporter praised Lelyveld for his “rabbinical wisdom” in resisting heavy competitive pressure to name Jewell as a suspect.

No rabbinical wisdom appeared to be involved when the New York Post ran a front page photo of two men, calling them “Bag Men” and saying they were being sought by authorities in the April Boston Marathon bombing. The men later sued the tabloid for defamation.

Three people died and an estimated 264 were injured in the April bombing, in which brothers Dzhokar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev later were identified as the suspects. Tamerlan was killed by police and Dzhokar was wounded before his capture.

The Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics says “test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error.” Good advice.

“60 Minutes” Trips on Truth

Accountability, Accuracy, Fabrication, , , , ,

By Casey Bukro

“60 Minutes” built a towering reputation as the TV news magazine that gets it right, but now is apologizing for getting it wrong in its report about the terrorist attack last year on the U.S. diplomatic mission in the Libyan port city of Benghazi.

Lara Logan, who reported the story, said it was a mistake to highlight a supposed eyewitness account of the attack by a security contractor who later was found to be lying about being at the scene of the attack, and seeing the body of U.S. ambassador J. Christopher Stevens at a local hospital.

“We made a mistake, and that’s very disappointing for any journalist,” said Logan.

The mistake involves an interview with Dylan Davies, a security contractor whose firm worked for the U.S. government, who was identified by “60 Minutes” by his pseudonym, Morgan Jones. He gave Logan a dramatic account of his role in fighting the terrorists, even smashing a terrorist in the face with a rifle butt. Logan appeared to coach him in describing the encounter.

“It was a mistake to include him in our report. For that, we are very sorry,” she is quoted in a New York Times story.

Actually, Davies/Jones told FBI investigators and his employer that he never left his villa the night of the attack because it was too dangerous. He did not visit the attack scene until the next morning. The conflicting government report caused the “60 Minutes” report to unravel.

From a journalist’s point of view, one can wonder about the CBS report, admittedly in retrospect. Why was Davies allowed to use a fake name on camera? And was any attempt made to prove that Davies was at the attack scene or at the local hospital, as he alleged?

The Times reported that CBS News Chairman Jeff Fager called the Logan report “as big a mistake” as “60 Minutes” has made in its 45-year history, but that its televised apology would be its last word on the issue.

This is seen as a “defensive crouch” by a news organization with a hard-hitting reputation and little pity for those caught in its cross-hairs. Fager also is executive producer of “60 Minutes.”

Marvin Kalb, a former CBS news correspondent, said in Politico.com that an apology from CBS is not enough.

“What has CBS learned, if anything?” asks Kalb, a senior adviser to the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.

Following the apologies, said Kalb, “perhaps CBS (and other networks, too) will engage in a wide-ranging, no-holds-barred self-analysis of its reporting standards, starting one hopes with the unholy alliance it has formed with book publishers pushing their hot exclusives,” he wrote.

Davies/Jones had a book deal with Simon & Schuster, which is owned by CBS’s parent corporation.

If an apology is all CBS News can muster, clearly it is not being as tough on itself as it is on others.

The Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics encourages journalists to “abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.”

On the upside, “60 Minutes” admitted its mistake and apologized, a rarity in TV journalism.  SPJ says “admit mistakes and correct them promptly.” The admission phase is done; the correction remains to be seen.

Later, CBS announced that Logan and her producer were placed on leave of absence.

In a memo to staff, Fager wrote that he asked Logan and Max McClellan, the producer, to take a leave of absence, which they agreed to do.

“When faced with a such an error, we must use it as an opportunity to make our broadcast even stronger,” Fager wrote. “We are making adjustments at 60 Minutes to reduce the chances of it happening again.”

As executive producer, Fager said, “I am responsible for what gets on the air.”