Archive for November, 2010


Cooking up a controversy: Author says magazine told her to “be happy” they plagiarized

It’s really simple. Never plagiarize.

Kids learn it in school. I’m not talking J-school but grade school. Certainly high school.

It’s part of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics. We elaborate on some points but not this one. Two words: “Never plagiarize.”

You may have seen Facebook and the Internet blow up today over an incident on which we’ve only heard one side. I want to be clear on that because that’s another part of our ethics code: “Test the accuracy of information from all sources.”

We haven’t heard from the regional food magazine at the center of a storm after a writer accused it of what seems to be either the ultimate chutpah or a lapse in judgment on the order of Mt. Everest. We tried to contact the magazine. No one is answering phone calls or e-mails.

Here’s what the one side that’s talking is saying: Author Monica Gaudio says a friend contacted her to congratulate her on her article “A Tale of Two Tarts” getting published in a regional food magazine called Cooks Source. Guadio says that was a surprise to her (her original article is here). She looked it up and sure enough, there was her article and her byline. So she says she contacted an editor at Cooks Source and asked for a $130 donation to the Columbia School of Journalism in lieu of payment for her work.

(This post from “How Publishing Really Works” has a pretty good run-down of the situation, with many updates. Apparently it’s not just Guadio’s work that’s possibly been plagiarized.)

Now, this is the part Guadio claims that’s blown up the Internet. Remember, we have no proof other than her word, which has been widely quoted, because we haven’t heard from Cooks Source.

Here is part of what Gaudio says the editor e-mailed her:

“But honestly Monica, the web is considered ‘public domain’ and you should be happy we just didn’t ‘lift’ your whole article and put someone else’s name on it! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally. Now it will work well for your portfolio. For that reason, I have a bit of a difficult time with your requests for monetary gain, albeit for such a fine (and very wealthy!) institution. We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me! I never charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written pieces, and have many who write for me… ALWAYS for free!”

Really?

It’s hard to believe any professional journalist would say this, which is why I’m couching this blog post and being cautious about accusations against Cooks Source’s editor (though the evidence is certainly not in the magazine’s favor). I mean, every high schooler knows if they plagiarize they get an “F”. College students know they get expelled. And who ever said the Internet is “public domain”? Gaudio published her original article on her own domain, which she says contains a clear copyright notice at the bottom of the webpage.

In case anyone’s confused, the Internet is not public domain. People still own their creative output. It’s still wrong to plagiarize in part or in whole.

It seems a lot of people get that. Since the magazine’s website directs people to its Facebook page, a lot of people started “liking” Cooks Source. Usually that’s a good thing, but not in this case. Check it out.

Ouch.

Again, we only have one side here and can’t seem to get the other. But late this afternoon, the story Cooks Source had posted under Gaudio’s name no longer appeared online. Instead, the link reads: ”This content is currently unavailable. The page you requested cannot be displayed right now.”

We don’t know what happened to all the hard copies. You can’t delete newsprint.

EmailTwitterGoogle+FacebooktumblrPinterestReddit

On Making Unpopular Decisions

Like many of you, I’m back in the newsroom at 8:30 this morning after a 16-hour election day, drinking bad coffee (my bad; I made it) and clearing my desk of the voluminous background material I used to prepare for yet another change in governmental leadership as pronounced by the citizens of this state and many others.

Will this change in leadership mean a change in direction? Political pundits can argue that one. I can only offer one prediction I would be glad to take back and be proven wrong: The folks in charge today and the folks who will take their offices in January will be loath to make decisions that rock the boat significantly in any direction.

There is little courage in politics today, as there is little courage for leaders elsewhere to make unpopular decisions.

The Society finds itself at these crosshairs regularly. In our struggle to pass a federal shield law, we were confronted by a dilemma over the definition of a journalist. The senators we needed (and still need through this upcoming lame duck session) to get this bill moving forward demanded a definition that some could interpret to exclude new journalists. SPJ leaders argued. The majority decided it was a shot worth taking to offer federal shield coverage to at least some, if not all, reporters. Our attorneys said they could argue that this wording would protect just about everyone doing journalism.

To me, that wasn’t the issue. Any definition is a slippery slope in my mind. It also fails to keep up with the constant change that defines the journalistic media. But I understood the decision on which I was outvoted in the context of the wheeling and dealing that defines passing laws in Washington D.C. It may have been courageous to take a stand on the definition. It may have been courageous — and practical — to accept the reality of lawmaking. Either decision required some measure of guts.

The Society takes unpopular stances often when it comes to free speech issues. Just this year, we held our noses and signed on to defend the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest near the funerals of veterans who die in combat, despite the church’s repugnant use of offensive signs like “God Hates Fags.” The church claims God kills soldiers as punishment for gay Americans.

No one at SPJ can help but sympathize with the father of soldier Matthew Snyder, killed in Iraq, who sued the church for its protest as he grieved an honorable son gone forever. Yet we still joined an amicus brief supporting the church’s first amendment rights to protest on public property. The implications for restrictions on free speech and press rights were too great.

A decision some could interpret as “supporting” hate speech isn’t popular. Neither is a more recent SPJ call on the Supreme Court to uphold lower court decisions striking down restrictions and labeling requirements for violent video games sold to children. If you’ve seen “Postal 2″ you know it’s beyond most “R” rated movies. Video-created blood splatters the screen after massacres that let underaged players imagine themselves as torturers inflicting cruelty on small children.

Even the Supreme Court justices seemed torn when they heard arguments over the case yesterday, while many of us were voting or covering the elections. Chief Justice John Roberts, who has young children, said “The child is not sitting there passively watching something. The child is doing the killing. The child is doing the maiming.” He and several other justices spoke of (disputed) studies that connect watching such games to children becoming more aggressive themselves.

But other Justices seemed to get the point the Society urged them to take when we joined an amicus brief to support the Entertainment Merchants Association, the trade group seeking to strike down the 2005 California law at issue here. Simply, it restricts free speech. It creates government censorship of commercial content. It adds one more exception to the First Amendment. It’s another slippery slope.

As the mother of a young child, I have to add my concern when adults expect the government to parent for them. Can we put common sense back in our personal toolkits? It’s up to us to restrict what our children view.

But that’s not necessarily the popular choice. It’s just the one the Society has to make to protect against any incursions on free speech. If only the politicians we elected yesterday would do the same, weigh issues that present choices for change, choose courses of action despite the backlash sure to follow, and then follow through with courage for the good of the country.

Then we might see some real change.

EmailTwitterGoogle+FacebooktumblrPinterestReddit


Newest Posts

Congratulations! Mark of Excellence Awards list April 16, 2014, 5:21 pm
Mark of Excellence Award duplicate order form April 16, 2014, 5:13 pm
Google Chrome: The Only Browser You’ll Ever Need April 16, 2014, 12:00 pm
Congrats & Annual Reports! April 14, 2014, 4:25 pm
Three Web Design Resources Every New Grad Should Play With April 14, 2014, 12:00 pm
Three Web Design Resources Every New Grad Should Play With April 14, 2014, 12:00 pm
6 Things to Bring to an Interview (and 6 Things to Hide) April 8, 2014, 1:50 am

Copyright © 2007-2014 Society of Professional Journalists. All Rights Reserved. Legal

Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center, 3909 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 | Fax: 317/920-4789 | Contact SPJ Headquarters | Employment Opportunities | Advertise with SPJ