New York Times Plagiarism – Nature or Nurture?

Published on 2010/03/11 in Plagiarism Case Studies, Plagiarism Discussion and new york times. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , .

Are recent incidents of newspaper plagiarism examples of Nature, something that would ‘naturally’ occur due to the inadvertent duplication of content, or Nurture, where plagiarism is happening because of the publishing environment writers are placed in?

Echoes of this question have surfaced over the last several weeks as the conversation on the New York Time’s reluctance to use plagiarism software has continued.  Contrasting points of view have come out of various blogs, including the Columbia Journal Review and True/Slant.    One notable entry into the discussion is the New York Times (which is the primary subject of the controversy after NY Times journalist Zachary Kouwe was caught plagiarizing Wall Street Journal content).

New York Times Op-Ed Columnist Clark Hoyt re-iterated  Silverman’s line of questioning on why the Times doesn’t employ plagiarism detection software: “Such software is in wide use in the academic world, but has few takers in the news industry.  Silverman said it makes many journalists uncomfortable because it seems to assume guilt.”

True/Slant writer Paul Smalera takes an opposing view to Silverman, asserting that in order to stop plagiarism from occurring within publications like the New York Times the entire environment needs to be modified:   “I would bet, with no inside knowledge, that the fiercely competitive Times, especially its Business section, especially DealBook, is loath to credit competitors, because it looks weak. So editors push for original-sounding reporting, and Kouwe massaged wire copy and blog posts to meet deadlines and word counts.”

Smalera makes a good point that Kouwe may have been on an unrealistic deadline to write up to 7000 original words per week.  On top of that, he was writing for the NYTimes business blog, DealBook, which reports on business facts that can only be recounted in so many ways.   In other words, the publication may have inadvertently created an environment that ‘nurtured’ plagiarism.

The New York Times is ‘fiercely competitive,’ especially during modern times when they face encroaching online media outlets that move in real-time and voraciously cover niche topics.  In order to protect their current market share, the Times needs to continue at their marathon pace: placing resources on and offline, covering a variety of topics, as well as managing journalistic integrity.  Increasing production and pushing deadlines may have put a strain on journalistic integrity, and in turn produced plagiarism.

On the flip side, within a large publication like the Times that distributes a huge amount of content across a variety of mediums, would plagiarism naturally occur even if the publishing environment were modified?  Are some of the recent writers who claimed they inadvertently copied figures from another source telling the truth?

Take the hypothetical situation of 10,000 journalists covering the same news story.  It seems likely that some snippet of nearly identical content would make its way across multiple versions of the coverage.   Although 10,000 journalists covering one story seems mildly absurd, we are getting closer to that number as online media outlets are thrown into the mix.   Of course, in the real world, there are a various other factors that come into play, including a writer’s access to previously published content.

The most likely answer probably falls within the gray between nature and nurture.  More instances of plagiarism may be cropping up due to the highly competitive news media environment, but some plagiarism would probably occur in different circumstances regardless.  Within large organizations like the New York Times there are a variety of reasons plagiarism can occur:  inadvertent plagiarism can slip through the cracks, a normally upstanding journalist can be pushed too hard with deadlines, or a ‘bad apple’ journalist lacking in morals can be mistakenly hired.

The variety of different ways and reasons plagiarism happens is exactly why plagiarism software is not something the Times, or any other large publication, should overlook.  With their logistic resources spread thin in such a competitive environment, plagiarism software is one piece of the puzzle that could  be massaged into their editorial process to provide a safety net.  This not only protects the integrity of the paper by preventing future cases of plagiarism, but also ensures readers that providing unique content is of the utmost importance to the publication.

As the New York Times tries to keep up with the rest of the industry and moves into a new era of publishing, they should keep in mind that the integrity of the unique content they provide is perhaps their most valuable asset.

Citations:

Silverman, Craig. “To Catch a Plagiarist ” The Columbia Journalism Review 19 Feb. 2010 http://www.cjr.org/regret_the_error/to_catch_a_plagiarist.php

Hoyt, Clark.  “Could Plagiarism Software Have Spared the Times an Embarrassment?” The New York Times  6 Mar. 2010 http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/06/could-plagiarism-software-have-spared-the-times-an-embarrasment/

Smalera, Paul. “Kouwe didn’t need anti-plagiarism software, just intellectual honesty ” True / Slant 8 Mar. 2010 http://trueslant.com/paulsmalera/2010/03/08/kouwe-didnt-need-anti-plagiarism-software-just-intellectual-honesty/

A Seal of Approval for News Publishers

Published on 2010/03/02 in Discussion and Plagiarism Discussion. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , .

There has been a recent series of plagiarism incidents coming out of news publications, from within large organizations like the New York Times to smaller ones like the Daily Beast.  In most cases the individual culprit ‘resigns’ and the publication maintains that it didn’t know about the misconduct until it was pointed out by some outside source.  The news organization usually says it will do everything possible to prevent something similar from occurring in the future, but more often than not they go back to doing things the same way as always.  Shouldn’t publishers show their readers that they are actually taking the due diligence to prevent plagiarism?

Utilizing a plagiarism checker like iThenticate doesn’t ensure a news publication a 100% guarantee against plagiarism; however it does drastically reduce the likelihood of something slipping through the cracks.   Making iThenticate a regular part of a publication’s editorial process allows all submitted content to be cross-checked with a massive online and offline database of content, instantly highlighting any duplicate content matches.    Not only does this process minimize the chance of a plagiarized article reaching distribution, it also serves as a ’seal of approval’ for readers.

Using a plagiarism checker says to readers that the quality and unique nature of the content they are reading is of the utmost importance to the publisher.  A publisher that says they care about catching plagiarism but doesn’t take the appropriate actions to back that up can’t truly tell the public that they are doing everything possible to prevent another incident from occurring.

Liken the process of consuming news content to buying produce at the supermarket. When you buy any sort of produce, it comes with a variety of labels that show it’s organic,  free range, healthy for the heart or any other number of certifications.  These labels are meant to guarantee that the produce has gone through some sort of externally organized certification process.  Utilizing iThenticate also certifies that a publisher has gone through an in-depth process to weed out the possibility of plagiarized content from reaching distribution.

In our current news climate, large papers are being threatened by new models of online distribution and smaller niche publications.  Standard subscriptions to papers are consistently dwindling and many large organizations are looking for new business models to stay afloat.   Most publications realize that in some shape or form they will need to transition the majority of their distribution to an online format within the next decade or so.

When the giants of the industry make this move, certifying that their content is truly unique becomes that much more important to their business model.   For readers that are potentially paying an online subscription fee to access content, they need to be ensured that this content cannot be found elsewhere in any shape or form (otherwise why pay?).  The seal of a plagiarism checker service helps to authenticate that the content truly is unique, and cannot be found elsewhere across the vast landscape of the internet or beyond.

In addition, if news publishers fully commit to the route of advertising as so many other online business do, the insurance that a plagiarism checker service provides also will come in handy.  Recently, we’ve seen celebrities like Tiger Woods dropped from endorsement deals because of a scandal that advertisers wanted nothing to do with.   The same goes for online advertising – no right minded advertiser would want their name or brand associated with a plagiarized piece of content.  Providing the proof that every piece of content has been run through a plagiarism checker can give advertisers the peace of mind that their money is well spent.

Citations:

Silverman, Craig. “To Catch a Plagiarist ” The Columbia Journalism Review 19 Feb. 2010 http://www.cjr.org/regret_the_error/to_catch_a_plagiarist.php

Posner ignorant to the true value in plagiarism detection software

Published on 2010/02/24 in Discussion and Plagiarism Case Studies. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

Posner is confused

In a February 10 blog, Gerald Posner did his best to explain an onslaught of plagiarism accusations, and his subsequent resignation from The Daily Beast.  While it is not uncommon for journalists to own up to acts of misconduct (particulary when it is discovered the one was , in fact, many), I was dismayed by one comment:

“Clearly, if I were a serial plagiarizer, I would have scanned my own drafts with such [plagiarism detection] software before submitting to the Beast.”

Now Jack Shafer, who ultimately broke the Posner plagiarism story in a Slate piece, did a wonderful job responding to Posner’s assertion in a February 11 follow-up …

“But examples of plagiarized stories found by me and Slate readers establish that Posner is a serial plagiarist! Of that there is no dispute! That he didn’t scan his drafts with software before submitting them to the Daily Beast doesn’t prove he isn’t a serial plagiarist.”

Shafer did well to point out Posner was exactly that which he claimed not to be, but I wanted to further address a growing misconception about plagiarism detection technology.  I will not dispute that in many cases organizations and/or individuals may choose the unethical path of using plagiarism detection software to shadow misconduct.  I think it more common though, Mr. Posner, that organizations and individuals employ plagiarism detection software for the simple purpose of quality control.

A good example regards our company’s relationship with journal publishers.  More than 75 global scientific, technical and medical publishers have deployed the  iThenticate Plagiarism Checker to supplement the editorial review.  Bill Hagen, Manager of Intellectual Property Rights at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), was poignant in his analysis of his organization’s use of plagiarism detection software:

“We’re glad to see so many societies embracing CrossCheck [powered by iThenticate], because it helps to protect the integrity of IEEE’s publications program and, by extension, all of IEEE.”

Plagiarism detection software can, and should, be a proactive effort to supplement quality assurance processes.  Used in this fashion, the technology can prove a critical component to a successful business model.

Citations:

Posner, Gerald.  “My Resignation from The Daily Beast” The Posner File 10 Feb. 2010 http://geraldposner.blogspot.com/2010/02/my-resignation-from-daily-beast.html

Shafer, Jack.  “The Posner Plagiarism Perplex”  Slate 11 Feb. 2010 http://www.slate.com/id/2244430/

Platt, John.  “New Tool Checks IEEE Publications for Plagiarism”  The Institute 5 Feb. 2010http://www.theinstitute.ieee.org/portal/site/tionline/menuitem.130a3558587d56e8fb2275875bac26c8/index.jsp?&pName=institute_level1_article&TheCat=1010&article=tionline/legacy/inst2010/feb10/prodservtool.xml&

No Reputation is Immune to Plagiarism

Published on 2010/02/22 in Plagiarism Case Studies and Plagiarism Discussion. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

The New York Times is considered America’s premiere news publication. The paper was established in 1851 and has consistently published some of the best work since its inception, including a large number of Pulitzer prize awarded pieces.  The Times has a reputation for journalistic integrity and an eye for detail.  The New York Times is also one of the largest papers in the world, publishing a large volume of content everyday both in print and online distribution formats.  This makes the New York Times particularly susceptible to instances of plagiarism.

Last week, New York Times writer Zachary Kouwe was accused of plagiarizing content from the Wall Street Journal and Reuters.  Kouwe, who wrote articles for the New York Times business section and an online blog called ‘DealBook,’ resigned on Feburary 16th after a formal inquiry.    Although the New York Times has a generally stellar reputation, they are no stranger to plagiarism.  In 2003, the Times’ Jason Blair became infamous for plagiarizing a number of articles without attributing the proper sources (as well as making up sources all together).

Even though the New York Times properly dealt with both of these cases and dismissed the culprits, that doesn’t mean the damage hasn’t already been done. The paper’s reputation takes a hit every time an incidence of plagiarism is revealed to the public.  It may not seem like a huge deal, but it allows worthy competing publications (like the Wall Street Journal) to gain market share.

These are no longer the days when consumers are forced to subscribe to a single paper.   Most people across the country have the ability to subscribe to a number of national and local papers that cover the exact same news that the New York Times does.  Online distribution also allows consumers newly minted access to a countless number of other news outlets.  Every time the New York Times takes a misstep like this it gives their subscribers the opportunity to consider another option.

It is the due diligence of any publication, especially one with the repute of the New York Times, to detect and prevent any cases of plagiarism prior to distribution.  Many publications have made the use of plagiarism detection software like iThenticate a day in and day out practice for their editors.   This practice makes even more sense for a publication that pushes out daily content at a high volume like the New York Times, as something is more likely to slip through the cracks.  iThenticate fully minimizes the chances of duplicate content slipping through the cracks, as it compares any submitted piece to millions of other offline and online sources.

Citations:

The New York Times. “Times Business Reporter Accused of Plagiarism Is Said to Resign ” The New York Times 17 Feb. 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/media/17times.html

Wikipedia contributors. “The New York Times.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 22 Feb. 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/media/17times.html

Plagiarism Detection of the Future

Published on 2010/02/17 in Discussion, Plagiarism Case Studies and Plagiarism Discussion. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , , .

For the most part, accurate plagiarism detection is currently limited to text content.  iThenticate allows publishers, law firms, corporations and others to accurately scan massive databases for duplicate and plagiarized content.  What does the future hold for software like this?

I’d like to examine three sectors that could benefit from a similar plagiarism checker product – art, music, and video.  All of these industries currently have a number of outstanding legal cases and disputes over plagiarized content.   With the right technology, plagiarism in all of these fields could be minimized through detection and checking prior to distribution.

Music: The music industry is notorious for having big profile cases of allegedly plagiarized songs.  Just to  name a few of the artists involved in disputes:  Coldplay, Huey Lewis,  Madonna and Timbaland. Many of these cases may in fact not involve deliberate plagiarism. Most musicians pull from a number of inspirations and certain riffs or tunes could inevitably  end up getting mimicked.

An effective music plagiarism checker could prevent any accidental copying by detecting duplicate riffs or tunes prior to distribution.  Just as it makes sense for publishers to run any of their content through a plagiarism checker before distribution, it also would be logical for record labels to do the same.

Art: Art distribution is another sector that could benefit from plagiarism technology that could potentially scan a piece and compare it to a database for exact or similar elements.  Although there is a lot of ‘grey’ areas in art and it could be argued that similar styles lead to similar end products, it couldn’t hurt for a company to scan their product before distribution.

A recent case in the news highlights a UK stationary chain called Paperchase getting accused by an independent artist of plagiarizing her design on a number of their notebooks and apparel products.  Paperchase denied the accusation and claimed they bought the design from a reputable London design company.  Whether they are guilty or not, if Paperchase had the technology to check all the artwork they were applying to products, they could potentially avoid disputes like this.

Video: The technology to scan digital video for specific content is evolving rapidly.  Services that can check videos for products, actors, and more are on the rise.  This same technology could be modified and utilized prior to video distribution to prevent any unwanted cases of duplicate content.

In the online video sector, clips are often re-used and appended to another video without proper attribution to the original filmmaker.   Video mash ups that take from various sources are commonplace.  As the online video industry formulates its business model – adopting a plagiarism prevention technology that could detect duplicate video content across the web (and beyond) would be highly beneficial.

Citations:

Green, Chris. “Paperchase forced to deny it copied artist’s work after Twitter backlash” The Independent 11 Feb. 2010 http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/paperchase-forced-to-deny-it-copied-artists-work-after-twitter-backlash-1896894.html