PDA

View Full Version : Plagiarism



ValorousBob
August 15 2012, 03:54:39 AM
Today I found out that Fareed Zakaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fareed_Zakaria) admitted a few days ago that he paraphrased part of an article on gun control from the New Yorker in his own article on the same topic several months later and didn't cite his source; aka plagiarism. He's a politically moderate foreign policy specialist who writes for TIME and has a show (http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/) on Sunday mornings about foreign affairs and world news type stuff. It's a great show if you're into that type of stuff.

After the accusations were made, he admitted the charges were accurate, took responsibility, apologized fully, etc. CNN and TIME have suspended his show and his weekly column for a month pending a deeper investigation.

Full article (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/fareed-zakaria-accused-of-plagiarism-131678.html)
Time Magazine columnist and CNN host Fareed Zakaria has apologized "unreservedly" to Jill Lepore for plagiarizing her work in The New Yorker.

"Media reporters have pointed out that paragraphs in my Time column this week bear close similarities to paragraphs in Jill Lepore's essay in the April 22nd issue of The New Yorker. They are right," Zakaria said in a statement to The Atlantic Wire. "I made a terrible mistake. It is a serious lapse and one that is entirely my fault. I apologize unreservedly to her, to my editors at Time, and to my readers."

(UPDATE: Time Magazine suspends Fareed Zakaria)

(UPDATE: CNN suspends Fareed Zakaria)

Zakaria's column about gun laws for Time's August 20 issue includes a paragraph that is remarkably similar to one Jill Lepore wrote in April for a New Yorker article about the National Rifle Association. (The similarities were first flagged by NRANews.com and first reported by Tim Graham of the conservative watchdog group Newsbusters, who leveled the plagiarism charge.)

From Lepore's New Yorker article:

As Adam Winkler, a constitutional-law scholar at U.C.L.A., demonstrates in a remarkably nuanced new book, “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America,” firearms have been regulated in the United States from the start. Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), and Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas explained in 1893, the “mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.

From Zakaria's Time Magazine column:

Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA, documents the actual history in Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. Guns were regulated in the U.S. from the earliest years of the Republic. Laws that banned the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813. Other states soon followed: Indiana in 1820, Tennessee and Virginia in 1838, Alabama in 1839 and Ohio in 1859. Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas (Texas!) explained in 1893, the "mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man."

In its initial statement earlier today, Time Magazine said it "takes any accusation of plagiarism by any of our journalists very seriously, and we will carefully examine the facts before saying anything else on the matter."

UPDATE (4:22 p.m.): A Time Magazine spokesperson emails:

TIME accepts Fareed's apology, but what he did violates our own standards for our columnists, which is that their work must not only be factual but original; their views must not only be their own but their words as well. As a result, we are suspending Fareed's column for a month, pending further review.

This post has been updated to include Zakaria's comment.


I'm personally really disappointed because I respect Fareed a lot and think he's a really smart guy. I'm guessing/hoping this was a one time incident because he immediately admitted to the first charge, but no other instances even though he surely knows CNN and TIME will be pouring over everything he's ever written for them (and possibly the Foreign Affairs stuff he wrote in the 90's). What do you guys think?

1) If this is the only incident, is a one month suspension enough?
2) Should he have been fired on the spot?
3) Odds, in your opinion, that this is a one time mistake?

and I guess

4) What do you guys think of Fareed in general?

Lallante
August 15 2012, 08:34:15 AM
If thats the full extent of the plagiarised copy then its nbd tbh, just a bit lazy.

erichkknaar
August 15 2012, 08:46:44 AM
Fareed is OK. I agree with Lallante. A bit lazy. In a minute of pondering, I don't really see many other options to rewrite those factual statements without torturing the English language. What is more interesting to me, is the identity (implying affiliation) of the people who leveled the complaints.

Hel OWeen
August 15 2012, 02:33:24 PM
Farred who? Never heard of him.

That said, in 2011 a couple of nerds in Germany were able to force Germany's Federal Minister of Defense to resign because of doctorate plagiarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Theodor_zu_Guttenberg#Resignation_from_all_politic al_offices).

This somehow became kinda "sports" and after that "first kill", other politians followed, like Silvana Koch-Mehrin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvana_Koch-Mehrin#Doctorate_plagiarism).

On the topic in general, my view is that plagiarism is bad, especially in academica and journalism. Both domains demand for excessive research/fact-checking.



[...] CNN and TIME will be pouring over everything he's ever written [...]


... and that's the reason for my above opinion. Trust/reputation is your (hard, solid) currency. Once it's weakened, speculators will bet against anything you've ever written and will write in the future.

smagd
August 15 2012, 02:46:12 PM
Should maybe be treated like doping: It's a no-no, but you don't get a life ban for the first offense.

It's definitely an offense worth punishing.

Don't some news services regularly fire photographers over photoshopping?

ValorousBob
August 15 2012, 06:43:06 PM
That's relieving to hear Lall/erich. I felt like it wasn't a huge deal, but I also realized that I'm pretty biased because of how much I like his show so it's good to know that non-Fareed fans agree. It was incredibly lazy though, the paragraphs are virtually identical. I don't really understand why he thought such blatant similarities wouldn't be noticed. And if he really wanted to use her paragraph, why didn't he just quote her for the entire thing?

For easier comparison:




As Adam Winkler, a constitutional-law scholar at U.C.L.A., demonstrates in a remarkably nuanced new book, “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America,” firearms have been regulated in the United States from the start. Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), and Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas explained in 1893, the “mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.




Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA, documents the actual history in Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. Guns were regulated in the U.S. from the earliest years of the Republic. Laws that banned the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813. Other states soon followed: Indiana in 1820, Tennessee and Virginia in 1838, Alabama in 1839 and Ohio in 1859. Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas (Texas!) explained in 1893, the "mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man."

:psyduck:


Farred who? Never heard of him.

He's not even that popular in the US, so even though his show airs internationally I'm not terribly surprised.

Evelgrivion
August 15 2012, 06:45:01 PM
Plagiarism is important for the same reasons that copyright law should be important; ideas products deserve to be attributed to their creators.

Zeekar
August 15 2012, 08:51:29 PM
People get sued and fined in the millions of dollars when they download a mp3. I would get expelled if i was plagiarising just like any other student in my uni and most others, so that everybody should be equal before the law let the fucker burn.

ValorousBob
August 15 2012, 09:32:39 PM
Aren't those both just examples of a reasonable rule/law being taken to the extreme and therefore poor examples to follow for other cases? We all know the copyright stuff has gotten out of hand, so I'll focus on the plagiarism.

Treating all plagiarism the same is dumb for the same reason all "sex offenders" being put into the same category is dumb. In America, if the police catch you pissing in a bush next to the gas station you stopped at because someone's using the only bathroom and you really have to piss, that's technically a "sex offense" and you get lumped into the same category as rapists and child molesters. Your sentence won't be comparable at all but the other penalties like being publicly listed as a sex offender, not being able to live near a school, having to declare your conviction for certain jobs, etc, are all the same. At one of the Homecoming football games (American football) during high school, these two kids went streaking on the field behind the cheerleaders, who were doing their halftime show thing. The cheerleaders thought the sudden outburst of cheering and applause was for them because they were facing the crowd, it was hilarious. If charges had been pressed, those two kids would have been labeled as sex offenders and it could have ruined their lives.

Compare that to plagiarism. Some people copy or fabricate massive amounts of material for books/magazines/newspapers and shatter the reputation of their colleagues when they get caught. There's a movie with James Franco based on the true story of a reporter at the New Republic magazine in the US who did that. Then compare that to a college student who does the exact same thing Fareed did, but in an essay for some Political Science class. At my school he/she would automatically fail the assignment, and maybe the class. But expulsion?!? The plagiarized passage has no analysis/ideas in it, it's just a list of facts with a quote. The difference between what Fareed did and what he should have done is nothing more then rearrange the words more. After all, he didn't steal any "ideas" from the the New Yorker columnist, the ideas came from the author cited in the first sentence. If you got expelled from uni for doing a similar thing just ONCE, I'd say that was incredibly unfair. Similarly, it's unfair to make all examples of plagiarism morally equivalent and just say "burn them all".

Zeekar
August 15 2012, 09:52:19 PM
Nobody really cares on essays and minor assignments i was talking about diploma level stuff where you are expected to present some original creative work which actually gets published.

ValorousBob
August 15 2012, 11:23:39 PM
Ahh ok, same thing over here then.

Me
August 15 2012, 11:47:24 PM
Should maybe be treated like doping: It's a no-no, but you don't get a life ban for the first offense.

It's definitely an offense worth punishing.

Don't some news services regularly fire photographers over photoshopping?

Doping should be a life ban for any offence.


However this whilst lazy is only one paragraph of a (presumably) much larger article. An apology should be enough provided he doesn't do it regularly. It's not even a particularly well written paragraph to be stealing...

Chrien
August 16 2012, 11:06:35 AM
Nobody really cares on essays and minor assignments i was talking about diploma level stuff where you are expected to present some original creative work which actually gets published.

Not at my university. Every assignment over 10% has to be submitted electronically to a program called Turnitin which checks the document and matches phrases/sentences to ones from its databases to detect if you've plagiarized. If you are over a certain percentage then you can get in serious trouble. Its not very effective, nearly everything its ever detected for me has either been a footnote or a direct quote in quotation marks.
Sadly fear of being called a plagiarizer changes the way people write. Several of my lecturers have expressed frustration at the fact that students are footnoting nearly every sentence out of fear of being called up on plagiarism charges. Its an over the top reaction but when the punishment is basically failing the subject on the first offense its not unsurprising.

Lallante
August 16 2012, 11:59:47 AM
I understand why passing off (or paraphrasing) a whole article/essay or large chunk of text (1/3 page +) is wrong and should be rallied against. I really dont understand why stealing a couple of neat factual sentences is a problem though.

Fara
August 16 2012, 12:20:37 PM
I personally distinguish between "took a setence or 3 in a news article" and "took a setence/paragraph (or more for that matter) into his own academical paper".

Zeekar
August 16 2012, 12:30:05 PM
Nobody really cares on essays and minor assignments i was talking about diploma level stuff where you are expected to present some original creative work which actually gets published.

Not at my university. Every assignment over 10% has to be submitted electronically to a program called Turnitin which checks the document and matches phrases/sentences to ones from its databases to detect if you've plagiarized. If you are over a certain percentage then you can get in serious trouble. Its not very effective, nearly everything its ever detected for me has either been a footnote or a direct quote in quotation marks.
Sadly fear of being called a plagiarizer changes the way people write. Several of my lecturers have expressed frustration at the fact that students are footnoting nearly every sentence out of fear of being called up on plagiarism charges. Its an over the top reaction but when the punishment is basically failing the subject on the first offense its not unsurprising.

They have that here as well at some faculties but I have never heard people getting expelled because of that. Thats why I say they dont really care.

Chrien
August 16 2012, 01:16:42 PM
Your institution will have a plagiarism policy written out somewhere (its probably well publicized).

Zeekar
August 16 2012, 02:03:52 PM
I'm saying there is one and I know it, they just dont really care about it with minor assignments.

ValorousBob
August 16 2012, 11:08:17 PM
Nobody really cares on essays and minor assignments i was talking about diploma level stuff where you are expected to present some original creative work which actually gets published.

Not at my university. Every assignment over 10% has to be submitted electronically to a program called Turnitin which checks the document and matches phrases/sentences to ones from its databases to detect if you've plagiarized. If you are over a certain percentage then you can get in serious trouble. Its not very effective, nearly everything its ever detected for me has either been a footnote or a direct quote in quotation marks.
Sadly fear of being called a plagiarizer changes the way people write. Several of my lecturers have expressed frustration at the fact that students are footnoting nearly every sentence out of fear of being called up on plagiarism charges. Its an over the top reaction but when the punishment is basically failing the subject on the first offense its not unsurprising.

We've been using Turnitin since early high school, but ironically only one or two of my college professors have used it. I don't think I ever got more than 3% "plagiarized" but a lot of people had the issue you described. I think it was because I almost never used direct quotes or something.

Cue1*
August 16 2012, 11:30:20 PM
Don't some news services regularly fire photographers over photoshopping?

In press photography, you can only modify the image in the same way you could if you were in a dark room. Tones, color balance, contrast, lighting and you can remove dust spots. Beyond that, it's illlegal.

ValorousBob
August 17 2012, 11:27:19 PM
Update in case anyone was wondering:


"We have completed a thorough review of each of Fareed Zakaria's columns for Time, and we are entirely satisfied that the language in question in his recent column was an unintentional error and an isolated incident for which he has apologized," Time's statement read.

And from CNN...

In a statement released a few hours later, CNN said: "CNN has completed its internal review of Fareed Zakaria's work for CNN, including a look back at his Sunday programs, documentaries, and CNN.com blogs. The process was rigorous. We found nothing that merited continuing the suspension."

And another interesting quote

In another piece of good news for Zakaria, the Washington Post apologised to him Thursday for stating in an article that in his 2008 book "The Post-American World," Zakaria had failed to cite the source of a quotation taken from another book. "In fact, Zakaria did credit the other work, by Clyde V. Prestowitz. Endnotes crediting Prestowitz were contained in hardcover and paperback editions of Zakaria's book. The Post should have examined copies of the books and should not have published the article," the daily said. "We regret the error and apologize to Mr. Zakaria," the Post wrote.

Full Article:

Washington, Aug 17 — Celebrated Indian American journalist Fareed Zakaria, who was suspended by Time and CNN last week after he apologised for plagiarizing a paragraph from the New Yorker for his Time column, will keep both his jobs.
Time magazine and CNN, both owned by Time Warner, announced Thursday that after a review of his work they were revoking the temporary suspensions of Mumbai born Zakaria, 48, who became editor-at-large of Time in 2010 and hosts CNN's flagship foreign affairs show "GPS".
Time said that Zakaria's column would resume with its Sep 7 issue. In a separate statement CNN said that Zakaria's weekly GPS would be back on the air Aug 26.
"We have completed a thorough review of each of Fareed Zakaria's columns for Time, and we are entirely satisfied that the language in question in his recent column was an unintentional error and an isolated incident for which he has apologized," Time's statement read.
"We look forward to having Fareed's thoughtful and important voice back in the magazine with his next column in the issue that comes out on Sep 7."
In a statement released a few hours later, CNN said: "CNN has completed its internal review of Fareed Zakaria's work for CNN, including a look back at his Sunday programs, documentaries, and CNN.com blogs. The process was rigorous. We found nothing that merited continuing the suspension."
"Zakaria has apologized for a journalistic lapse," it added. "CNN and Zakaria will work together to strengthen further the procedures for his show and blog."
"Fareed Zakaria's quality journalism, insightful mind and thoughtful voice meaningfully contribute to the dialogue on global and political issues," it said.
In another piece of good news for Zakaria, the Washington Post apologised to him Thursday for stating in an article that in his 2008 book "The Post-American World," Zakaria had failed to cite the source of a quotation taken from another book.
"In fact, Zakaria did credit the other work, by Clyde V. Prestowitz. Endnotes crediting Prestowitz were contained in hardcover and paperback editions of Zakaria's book. The Post should have examined copies of the books and should not have published the article," the daily said.
"We regret the error and apologize to Mr. Zakaria," the Post wrote.
(Arun Kumar can be contacted at arun.kumar@ians.in)
IANS


Read more: http://india.nydailynews.com/newsarticle/22af926e3aa767d511f11abe648a01b1/fareed-zakaria-keeping-jobs-at-time-cnn#ixzz23qhWZUeq

In less pertinent news, I went to go watch what I thought was the last aired episode of Fareed Zakaria's GPS on my dvr, but those twats at CNN had pulled the episode immediately after the original scandal broke so all I had was an hour long bullshit with Candy Crowley. Rage ensued.