This section\u00a0addresses these ethical questions:<\/p>\n
The century-old Society for Professional Journalists has a simple statement on plagiarism in its Code of Ethics<\/a>: \u201cNever plagiarize. Always attribute.\u201d<\/p>\n Agreeing to that ethical demand is much more nuanced than the instruction, as evidenced by this response to a Politico tweet by the late New York Times reporter David Carr. Carr responded with a link to his own previously published story on the subject:<\/p>\n @politico<\/a> “sources” like, um Piers Morgan? http:\/\/t.co\/jEi4djNfdh<\/a> Stay classy, Politico!<\/p>\n \u2014 david carr (@carr2n) February 24, 2014<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Plagiarism is traditionally defined as taking someone else\u2019s work and presenting it as your own. In journalism, it is considered one of the primary sins of the profession. Many journalists have lost their jobs or faced legal action for lifting others\u2019 writing or other production.<\/p>\n On what Carr deems \u2018class,\u2019 that is, giving appropriate credit to the originator of a piece, The New York Times has struggled, according to its own public editor. In a piece titled \u201cGiving Credit: A Work in Progress at The Times\u201d<\/a>, Public Editor Margaret Sullivan delineates cases when The New York Times used other people\u2019s work as a springboard for its own. Sullivan wrote:<\/p>\n The Times takes pride in its original reporting, and excels at it. What it doesn\u2019t always excel at is giving full credit to the work of other news organizations.<\/p>\n In your own work, consider the Golden Rule–Do unto others as you would have them do unto you–when assessing whether to credit another news outlet\u2019s work. A similar consideration holds when sharing photos, updates or tweets on social media.<\/p>\n If the original work is incorrect in some way, having credited the origin also allows distance from the mistake should it need to be corrected.<\/p>\n News organizations follow a range of practices in attributing to other news organizations: linking directly to the original story, attributing by name to the journalist and organization, attributing only what they can\u2019t \u201cre-report,\u201d contacting many or all of the same sources to provide a story that is neither plagiarized nor original, or vague attribution such as \u201cmedia reports,\u201d \u201cwas reported\u201d or \u201creportedly.\u201d<\/p>\n In general, erring on the side of directly crediting the source is safer, ethically and legally, than the reverse.<\/p>\n The most common excuse for plagiarism is that in working with research or background material, the journalist got confused as to what was his own and what came from someone else. Sometimes journalists say they intended to add attribution or a link, but they forgot to do so in the editing process.<\/p>\n To the extent these excuses are honest, there are effective ways to prevent this problem. Journalists should keep background information in a file, or electronically in a different color, so it\u2019s obvious what came from somewhere else.<\/p>\n There are also anti-plagiarism programs that can search the Web for similar wording; finished stories can be run through such a program to determine what wording may not be original.<\/p>\n In the digital era–and with the general popularity of cut-and-paste research–questions have been raised about whether there are different degrees of plagiarism. Is all plagiarism the same? Can plagiarism sometimes be a minor infraction? Is \u201cpatch writing\u201d<\/a> resulting from cutting and pasting as serious as lifting hundreds of words? Can rewriting the work of others be considered \u201ccreative work\u201d in itself?<\/p>\n Some believe that, for example, in compiling a quick listicle (\u201c10 Things To Know About Mauritania\u201d), it\u2019s not a major sin<\/a> to take some basic information from another source without substantially rewriting it. (Wikipedia, for instance, says its material can be reused or redistributed<\/a> by anyone without charge. But suppose a journalist imports wording for a listicle from a copyrighted publication?<\/p>\n Others, including most large news organizations, believe any plagiarism is too much. They do not carve out exceptions for listicles or Wikipedia; they believe that any unattributed copying of others\u2019 phrasing is a fundamental violation of journalistic ethics.<\/p>\n Some digital news organizations, in an attempt to make attribution an essential part of their workflow, require staff members to use hyperlinks to their digital sources, even competitors. One issue that arises here, however, is whether it\u2019s enough to simply provide a hyperlink to show that information came from another source (e.g., \u201cChina\u2019s rising population\u201d) or if it\u2019s also essential to name the original source in the text itself (e.g., \u201cChina\u2019s rising population, according to U.N. figures\u201d).<\/p>\n Each news organization must make its own determination about how it will handle instances of plagiarism–bearing in mind that whatever its own standards, there still may be legal exposure if its staff is viewed as stealing content from others.<\/p>\n As busy as journalists are, it may be tempting to pass off writing from a news release as their own. While sources of the news releases may, in fact, be pleased to see their words replicated, journalism means more than parrotting someone else\u2019s words. Making clear what information comes directly from a release and what is original reporting avoids that pitfall. If you regard attribution as a matter of transparency with readers, rather than simply a courtesy to other journalists, it\u2019s obvious why many news organizations require attribution of press releases.<\/p>\n Search for \u201cself plagiarism\u201d and you will find more questions than answers. Journalism\u2019s big thinkers remain undecided on whether self-plagiarism is a crime without a victim. Gawker has offered this advice<\/a>:<\/p>\n A good rule of thumb for writers who are concerned about whether they’re reusing too much old material is to simply ask themselves, “Would my editor be okay if I told him how much of this is reused?” The answer will be “no,” so then you can stop reusing things, you lazy bum.<\/p>\n Beyond that internal discussion, there is a legal discussion to be had regarding copyright–if your words for one publication are owned by that publication, you may have little right to use them for another publication.<\/p>\n Beyond that, there are other questions worth considering:<\/p>\n Each journalist may have different gut feelings on the answers. Discuss your standards with your superiors and your colleagues. And when in doubt, give credit to the source.<\/p>\n The main author of this section\u00a0is Rachel E. Stassen-Berger<\/a> of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. It reflects her analysis and not that of her employer. Other material is by Thomas Kent<\/a>\u00a0and Steve Buttry<\/a> of Louisiana State University.<\/p>\n Additional resources<\/b> This section\u00a0addresses these ethical questions: How can journalists make use of each other\u2019s material without being accused of plagiarism? Have the rules about plagiarism changed in the digital era? What about publishing material from press releases? Is it possible to plagiarize from yourself or your own publication? The century-old Society for Professional Journalists has a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":82,"featured_media":0,"parent":25,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-187","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
The Golden Rule<\/h3>\n
News releases<\/h3>\n
\u201cPlagiarizing\u201d from yourself or your publication<\/h3>\n
\n
\n\u201cTelling the Truth and Nothing But,\u201d<\/a> Digital Newsbook, National Summit to Fight Plagiarism and Fabrication
\nButtry, Steve, \u201cHow many identical words amount to plagiarism?\u201d<\/a> The Buttry Diary, December 11, 2014
\n\u201cAttribution, quotation marks and links: They turn plagiarism into research,\u201d<\/a> Steve Buttry, The Buttry Diary, August 20, 2014
\n\u201cJournalists need to use links to show our work,\u201d<\/a> Steve Buttry, The Buttry Diary, April 5, 2013
\n\u201cA quiz to teach journalists about plagiarism and attribution,\u201d<\/a> Steve Buttry, The Buttry Diary, February 7, 2012
\nWasserman, Edward, \u201cWhy news organizations need to credit each other,\u201d<\/a> ewasserman.com, February 10, 2014
\nWasserman, Edward, \u201cThe Plagiarism Panic\u201d<\/a> The Huffington Post, September 19, 2012
\nWasserman, Edward, \u201cWhat\u2019s wrong with \u2018plagiarizing\u2019 your own work?\u201d<\/a> The Huffington Post, July 5, 2012<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"